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.

​

 

[pdmiller]

I'm a realist. A Venture Capitalist. A Warmongering overlord of my domain when crossed in business or elsewhere.

So as hardcore as I am I will say the following.

It makes no business sense in sectioning off your market share based on religion, orientation, and so on. If their money is good... you take it. Making personal judgments about someone's ideals that can affect your bottom line is foolish.

Because if you do.... someone else will take their money and add them to their market base.


On a personal level.

On the long road in life that I have traveled so far, I have learned not to judge people by their looks (and other things, etc...). As long as people are polite and civil with me I will return the favor. Even become their friend. If it happens, it happens.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Much kudos to you sir.

 

[pdmiller]

Here's an interesting analogy. How would people feel if *GenCon* declared that no black people were allowed at the convention? Would they defend Gen Con's right to do business with who they chose, despite that being illegal?

That would be a horrible and stupid thing to do. They'd be out of business in a wink. Self correction at work.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You are nearly there with your argument - except when you mention restrictions placed on you by your race.

There are none in law. In fact there are "affirmative action" type laws to promote access to education and employment opportunities for minorities, including black people. I'm not sure what restrictions you are referring to, but they are probably along the lines of informal racism rather than any legal impediments?

But, people are allowed to be stupid and hold crazy beliefs like racism. You are entitled to hate them right back if you want to, as long as neither of you violates the other's rights. And no, hurt feelings do not count. Defence of free speech is not the same as defence of popular speech.
But you are right - if no-one discriminates, there is no problem!

No analogy is perfect.

Yes, I was mainly referring to the informal- but often institutionalized- racism faced by blacks. IOW, while it isn't law, it may well have the force of the state behind it, so it functions as if it were. It isn't an explicit law on the books, but it is no accident that Federal investigators found- among other things- black motorists in a traffic stop in Ferguson, Missouri were more than 2x more likely to be searched for contraband than stopped white motorists (11%B vs 5%W) despite being much less likely to actually have contraband (24%B vs 30%W)...all while accounting for 85% of traffic stops. (Ferguson is less than 70% black.)

And remember, it wasn't until 2000 that Alabama formally struck from its books the prohibition of interracial marriage. I would not be surprised to find magistrates in & around "sundown towns" everywhere in the USA acting as if it were still legal to deny that fundamental right to mixed couples.

Even when it is private actors doing the discrimination, informal racism can be crippling: redlining by Century 21 kept blacks out of nicer neighborhoods, with all that entails. Inability to get a bank loan or a job because of your skin's melanin concentration reduces upward mobility.

White guys carrying real firearms in Texas (relatively) peacefully and openly are covered on the news as "Open Carry Advocates"- meanwhile, a black man carrying a BB gun he intended to purchase in a WalMart in Ohio gets covered on the news as being "shot dead."

...but let us leave all that aside, and IMPROVE the analogy.

What if I had said, "You can always sell your business and be free of the restrictions of being a business owner. A person cannot sell his religious beliefs and be free of the restrictions placed on him or her by being of that faith tradition."

And having said so, asked you to reconsider the statements I made earlier in this thread about
Atheists. A deeply held conviction that there is no divine being of any kind is still a belief about the nature of religion.

And Atheists are prevented by the constitutions of several states from holding any kind of public office.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

Me? I'm a practicing "cradle" Roman Catholic: most of the religious discrimination I face is like what I face as a black man- informal. And oddly enough, most of it comes from other Christians, such as when, in 1983, my private high-school was told by a Baptist private school that they would no longer be putting us on their schedule because we were Catholics.

 

[pdmiller]

No analogy is perfect.

Yes, I was mainly referring to the informal- but often institutionalized- racism faced by blacks. IOW, while it isn't law, it may well have the force of the state behind it, so it functions as if it were. It isn't an explicit law on the books, but it is no accident that Federal investigators found- among other things- black motorists in a traffic stop in Ferguson, Missouri were more than 2x more likely to be searched for contraband than stopped white motorists (11%B vs 5%W) despite being much less likely to actually have contraband (24%B vs 30%W)...all while accounting for 85% of traffic stops. (Ferguson is less than 70% black.)

And remember, it wasn't until 2000 that Alabama formally struck from its books the prohibition of interracial marriage. I would not be surprised to find magistrates in & around "sundown towns" everywhere in the USA acting as if it were still legal to deny that fundamental right to mixed couples.

Even when it is private actors doing the discrimination, informal racism can be crippling: redlining by Century 21 kept blacks out of nicer neighborhoods, with all that entails. Inability to get a bank loan or a job because of your skin's melanin concentration reduces upward mobility.

White guys carrying real firearms in Texas (relatively) peacefully and openly are covered on the news as "Open Carry Advocates"- meanwhile, a black man carrying a BB gun he intended to purchase in a WalMart in Ohio gets covered on the news as being "shot dead."

I think we are somewhat on the same track - the focus needs to be on the legal and law enforcement dimensions. Get those right and everyone benefits, and those examples you cite become rarities and eventaully disappear. I think that is happening now, maybe not fast enough.

But my idea of getting it right may be different from others' - I'm all for creating an environment where everyone has the same rights and opportunities. I think that should be the role of our elected rulers. That means people can think and say crazy stuff - but DOING crazy stuff - especially if it impacts negatively on others or their property - needs to be regulated.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem with elected politicians in this arena is that they are elected politicians. If the majority of the constituents in a given area wants to discriminate, no politician who wants to keep his job representing them will stiffen his spine and go against that will.

Which is why- even though imperfect as well- the courts and their unelected judges have been such a key force in the civil rights movement.

 

[dd.stevenson]

The good news is that it has been a lot more civil than not only discussions on gaming- as noted by others- but also the discussions on political websites.

I'm not sure why that would be good news, unless I actually wanted EnWorld to move toward a political discourse site.

Which I absolutely goddamn don't.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's good because it's proof some of us can exhibit...grace under pressure.

 

[graypariah]

Wow I missed a lot since yesterday AND the discussion stayed relatively civil.

I would like to preface the below wall with this: the matter of what is and what is not a choice is not something that can conclusively be stated. Choice is central to what it means to be human and how much of our actions and thoughts are actually governed by choice and how much are predetermined will be something we ask ourselves for as long as there are humans to ask it. So to say someone is wrong for believing something is a choice and labeling that statement as insulting seems a bit extreme (after all the person wasn't stating that they made the wrong choice). I do not believe that a person's orientation is a choice, but then again I do not believe any of us has much choice in the river that is life so perhaps it is an easier conclusion on my part.

Those who say that business owners aren't a protected class and imply that they shouldn't be because they can choose not to run their business that way or in that place may not be thinking things through far enough. What would you have them do? Close down shop because they cannot sleep at night after being forced to go against everything they believe is right? How will they pay their bills? Feed their families? Such a decision could lead the business owner to a lifetime of poverty. Once their decision is made to be a business owner, in a lot of cases there is no way to go back without having to declare bankruptcy, get a job making barely above minimum wage, and just get by until social security. Sure there are the small business owners that make millions of dollars, but there are a lot who barely break even. True they chose to take that risk, but once that choice is made should they automatically get the short end of the stick when it comes to any situation that moved the line? How much of the short stick should we give them? Obviously discrimination is wrong, what where does that line get gray enough to allow them any choice in how they run their business? Do they need to provide special seating for those who are overweight? Do they need to provide a place for women to lactate? Do they need to provide kosher and halal options? What about gluten free? How much of that should be required by law and how much should be encouraged by society? The line gets moved and they lose some of their freedoms, do they get any back?

As for comparing members of the LGBT community with blacks, the issue is that regardless of whether they have a choice in their orientation their orientation is not necessarily visible. Just as a person's religion is not always visible. People say offensive things (sometimes not meaning to) and that is why it is the polite thing to tread carefully with a person if you do not know them well. If your orientation offends them and their religious views offend you, perhaps the best way to handle it is to go elsewhere. I don't bring up certain things around my older family members because it might offend them. My views are not necessarily incorrect but instead of making it a point to bring them up I just keep it to myself. That isn't the same as hiding - I do not think a person should have to hide who they are. But if you think your kissing might offend some people, perhaps just wait until you are alone - after all it isn't like PDA is something to be encouraged at all times and places regardless of who is kissing who. That is pretty much the only way a person is going to know for sure and coincidentally it is also probably the thing that will offend them the most. In some parts of the world (including certain communities in the US) anything more than holding hands will offend people regardless of whether it is a man and a woman or a woman and a woman.

Let them have their religious freedom even if it means you dial back the PDA. Better that a person have to choose between kissing in public and eating at a certain place than for person to be forced to choose between upholding their religious views and having to risk poverty. One is potentially out a meal, the other is potentially out a job. Does it really matter who is right and who is wrong when the amount of risks are so very different? Besides, as other posters have said only the most diehard of religious people would turn down a customer based on their orientation - would you really want to do business with them anyway if their intolerance was so strong?

 

[sillyxander]

No I'm sorry you don't get to decide to be discriminatory.

This is not a stand for inclusiveness - this is a stand for telling businesses, "Sorry, you thought you had the right to decide which transactions you want to be a part of? Well, I have decided that I will decide how your business is run."

We have a system set up in this country and if you want to be part of it you have to abide by some rules. These rules are if you want to sell something you don't get to choose who you sell to, and I'm not talking guns, or medicine, or liquor here. I'm talking regular services, like selling lunch or wedding cakes, or taking photos. You don't get to say, "No I don't agree with you life so I won't sell you this sandwich." This isn't about deciding how you run your business. This about discrimination. These so called laws want to protect people who want to be able to discriminate against people they don't like or agree with. How would we feel if this law was being used to discriminate against religions, or people who are a different race? If these were the issues no one would even have to send a letter like this. But yet when it's for the LGBT community it seems like it's ok. Another way to know that this is not about protecting but about discrimination is because these people never care when they sell to people who don't live according to their bible. They let people who eat shrimp shop there, or people who mix different types of material or whatever archaic laws are in that book. I have nothing against people who want to follow whatever religion or practice whatever belief they want to but leave other people to live their lives as they want as long as they aren't hurting no one. Thank you Gen Con for making people like me feel welcome. And thank you En World for letting us have this discussion.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Our country decided decades ago that you can't refuse to serve someone because of the color of his/her skin. This is no different - it's a civil rights issue.

I applaud GenCon for standing up for basic civil rights. One of the best ways to prevent this kind of discrimination is hitting cities and states where it hurts most - their pocketbooks.