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.

​

 

[Gnarl45]

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. I have to wonder if US history plays a role in this difference in viewpoint. Some of the early American colonists were groups that came here to escape a government that would not allow them to practice their religion, many, of course, from England. It may be that we're seeing evidence of a propagation of those beliefs and experiences down through the years.

I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?

You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?

 

[mlund]

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.

It's really easy once you buy into the idea that the government can do anything "for the greater good" rather than the idea that the government must be restricted from exercising power unless it meets an increasing burden of proving necessity when it restricts the citizenry. That philosophy isn't anything new.

The difference is what made the United States Republic different from, say, the First French Republic or the Soviet Republic. Skepticism of the people's ability to continue to learn and value that distinction rather than do whatever they felt "right" or whatever became popular once they had governing power was one of the main causes for people saying the "American Experiment" was doomed from the outset. Heck, even Thomas Jefferson figured we'd have to topple the government by some sort of agrarian revolt every generation due to human nature and our founders initially tried to install Gen. George Washington as monarch-for-life.

Marty Lund

 

[billd91]

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

I find it a little scarier that people think it should be OK to blatantly discriminate against people and deny them the services they offer to everyone else because they're different.

 

[graypariah]

I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?

You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?

I think the issue isn't that universally nothing relating to religion should be illegal, I think it is that as long as it is not physically harming or endangering someone that the government should tred very carefully when it comes to religion. As I am sure everyone realizes, religion is a very touchy subject for a great many people and this country was founded on (among other things) religious freedom. There is a difference between going out and forcing people to listen to your discrimination and staying indoors and simply not allowing certain people that you do not agree with into your place of business. Neither action is one that I agree with, but they are not the same thing. I am sure there are groups of people that each of us have that we would not serve, after all there are some pretty bad people and groups in the world. To avoid risking a hyperbole I will not state which ones that I would not provide service to.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't understand why you say you aren't allowed to practice your religion? How is kicking out a gay couple from your hotel practicing your religion?

You live in a country where your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. And trust me, you want it that way and you don't want to make an exception for religions. The last thing you want is for your Aztec/Mexican neighbour to sacrifice your spouse because Huitzilopochtli demands it... Or what about your Tanzanian shaman friend that murders albinos so he can make magic potions out of his body parts? Shouldn't they also be allowed to practice their religion?

What part of we don't want to get sued just because someone thinks we are bigots...just look at this thread to see it. If you have a reason to disagree then you can, unless the person claims your only disagree because ofnsex...

 

[Shemeska]

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

Because even if you assume historicity to the story, the original story and subsequent reference to it both in the NT and Talmudic commentary, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Really only some very sketchy sourcing and translation in the KJV makes that connection.

 

[mlund]

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.

See, this philosophy is what people should be very skeptical about. That's not describing a free society at all. That's Totalitarianism through and through.

That's the exact rationale that justifies saying I can take away Free Speech from the neo-Nazis because I find what they have to say to be evil. It's the same rationale that justifies stoning gay people in a community where enough people classify homosexual acts as "wrong" or "a threat to the community" or whatever other nonsense they can gin up. It doesn't suddenly become OK as long as the jack-boot is on the "right" foot.

"Jerk" is not the bar set in a free society for government punishment. That's the bar set for social action: disagreeing, boycotting, etc.

In a free society the bar for use of the monopoly of violence (government) is set much, much higher - basically to that of necessity.

We can't take away people's right to be "jerks." That just makes us, "An Evil Mr. Rogers," to borrow a phrase.

Marty Lund

 

[cmad1977]

If you think anyone here is fore violence or even hostility you miss read every agreement

But clearly being treated equally under the law isn't of concern to some. I don't think I'm wrong in that assessment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So it is then ok for him to discriminate against everyone except one group (one which he belongs to) as opposed to discriminating against only one group?

That's an odd & twisted way of describing a clergyman of Faith A who only performs the ceremonies of his own faith.

But yes, it is entirely permissible- the norm, even- for clerics to limit themselves to performing ceremonies only of their religion and for the adherents thereto.

 

[Zaruthustran]

See, this philosophy is what people should be very skeptical about. That's not describing a free society at all. That's Totalitarianism through and through.

Again, the goal isn't a free society. "A free society" isn't the ideal. Society needs rules. A society without rules is a mob.

We can't take away people's right to be "jerks." That just makes us, "An Evil Mr. Rogers," to borrow a phrase.

We can. We have (American Civil Rights act, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc.). We must.