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.

​

 

[graypariah]

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

It is a concern to me at least, I apologize if I have given the impression that I am not concerned about the situation. The problem is that the truly have everyone treated equally under law is not something that will ever happen short of one of my D&D campaigns. I treat people as fairly as I can, and I hope that my example will inspire others to do the same. Who knows, perhaps we wont need to be treated equally under laws one day - because we will treat everyone fairly already.

 

[billd91]

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?

One complicating issue here is, and this came up in the Hobby Lobby decision, there are religions that expect adherents to avoid "enabling immorality". And that's exactly what every one of the anti-gay discrimination cases under these religious freedom acts are going to rely on. By renting homosexuals an apartment, they'll be enabling sinful gay sex. By baking a wedding cake, they'll enable sinful gay weddings. Meanwhile, they're probably ignoring legions of other immoralities they're enabling through serving other people who aren't as big a hot-button issue yet whose activities may be just as abhorrent to their religion. In the realm of religious objections, homosexuals happen to be the bête noire du jour.

 

[sillyxander]

I'm sorry this may get me kicked off the board and I'm fine with that. But supporting any type of law that supports discrimination of any kind does have make you part of that group that wants to be discriminatory. I'm not attacking any specified person or posters.
You can say people are very personal about their religion but only when they choose to and that's hypocrital. You can say being lgbt has nothing to do with race but if your not gay how would you know that. As someone who is both gay and a Mexican American and on top of that a gamer the only thing I have chosen is to be a gamer. So there's that. Thanks again for the support Gen Con. And thanks again Enworld for hosting this talk. I'm dropping my mic and leaving the building.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

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.

Practice of religion stops where another person's rights begin. Practice of religion is something for the home and places of worship, not a place of business and absolutely not in government.

 

[graypariah]

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.

I assure you I did not mean to twist your words, but instead to simply restate them without their religious connotations to make part of my point. That part was that the fact that this is an issue related to religion changes things and makes it a very different thing than for example men and women or blacks and whites. This isn't something cut and dry, this is something with many layers and no real right or wrong answers. It is considered ok for a religion to exclude those who are not members of that religion according to many, but it is not ok for an orientation to exclude those that are not members of that orientation according to most. In both these cases however these are but labels and in a perfect world we would move past using such labels. It shouldn't matter what race, gender, orientation, religion, or any other label a person is.

 

[halfling rogue]

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.

I see how you are trying to spin it, but here is what you just put forward:

Free exercise of religion protected by the government vs Government force against religion based on the whims of the mob

And until the constitution is changed, you have placed yourself on the latter side.

 

[graypariah]

I'm sorry this may get me kicked off the board and I'm fine with that. But supporting any type of law that supports discrimination of any kind does have make you part of that group that wants to be discriminatory. I'm not attacking any specified person or posters.
You can say people are very personal about their religion but only when they choose to and that's hypocrital. You can say being lgbt has nothing to do with race but if your not gay how would you know that. As someone who is both gay and a Mexican American and on top of that a gamer the only thing I have chosen is to be a gamer. So there's that. Thanks again for the support Gen Con. And thanks again Enworld for hosting this talk. I'm dropping my mic and leaving the building.

This is not true, saying that is like saying that by supporting a law that gives members of the LGBT community rights makes me a member. While I definitely would not have a problem with that, that isn't how it works. Two people can strive for the same result and have two very different motives.

There is no need to disqualify what we have to say because we have not walked in your shoes. There are more forms of discrimination than ones based on color or orientation and I am sure that most of us have felt what it feels like to be discriminated against. As a non-christian in this country in which Atheists are the least trusted minority, I can assure you that I know what it feels like to be discriminated against. I will not say my struggle is the same as yours or that my hardships were greater, but I do feel I have enough experience to weigh in.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The bill in particular aims to protect the religious liberty of the owner in order that they might operate their business in accordance with both the Law of the Land as well as how they see fit.

Nice sentiment, but we are a secular nation of laws with prohibitions against favoring one faith over another, one group over another. When you start discriminating against whole groups, you run afoul of those laws.

As has been said in numerous ways, your rights end where mine begin. When you open a business, your right to shape it with your religious tenets becomes more restricted. You can have a grocery that only sells kosher or halal foods, but you can't restrict the sale of them to Jews or Muslims only.

An owner who claims their religion does not want to serve people who are a different skin color will not be able to operate because they are breaking the Law. However an owner who claims that they believe same sex marriage is wrong according to their religion ought to be able to opt out of serving a client who desires their service.

Again, show me a passage from a religious text that says baking cakes for non-believers or sinners is prohibited.

A caterer for instance. Should a homosexual caterer be allowed to refuse to cater an anti-homosexual rally?

On the grounds that they are anti-homosexual? Like a conservative black-tie dinner? Probably not.

On the grounds that he fears for the mental and physical health of his staff or himself by the group wanting the catering done? Like an open air protest by the Wesboro church? Well that's like asking a black baker to cater a KKK rally, so most definitely yes.

Well that's like asking a black baker to cater a KKK rally.

So far, in this thread and in the public square everyone is freaking out that this bill will essentially introduce legalized discrimination against gays. This isn't about gays.

I agree. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the wording of this legislation is broad enough that it can used to justify discrimination against any group on religious grounds.

It's about protecting religious liberty and whether or not business owners should be forced to go against their religion. Thus far we don't have any movement to not serve gay persons, but we do have owners not wishing to participate in gay culture/ceremonies/etc. and some states have forced owners to operate against their religious scruples or pay the price.

Yes we do.

We have doctors refusing to treat the children of lesbians. We have caterers and photographers refusing at least some services to gay they provide straights. We have landlords & hoteliers refusing to rent to gays.

Whether you agree or disagree with the scruples of a certain religion or not is beside the point. The point, for America, is upholding the Constitution, which explicitly protects the free exercise of religion.

We have the right to all kinds of things under the constitution, like the pursuit of happiness. And the trend of constitutional law over the past 50 years has been to recognize that refusal of services to groups based on immutable characteristics is unconstitutional.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Practice of religion stops where another person's rights begin. Practice of religion is something for the home and places of worship, not a place of business and absolutely not in government.

Religions are systems of belief, including morality, ideas about what is right and what is wrong. For a person of faith, religion is about how you live your life, not about what you do just at home or just at church.

I find it strange that you're so vocal about your right to live as you wish but are utterly indifferent to the rights of others who differ from you to do the same. Especially since that seems to have been your primary message in this thread.

 

[billd91]

I see how you are trying to spin it, but here is what you just put forward:

Free exercise of religion protected by the government vs Government force against religion based on the whims of the mob

And until the constitution is changed, you have placed yourself on the latter side.

Actually, not at all. Until RFRA was passed by the feds, the prevailing course in American constitutional law was to be skeptical of religious objections since everyone was equally subject to the law and thus no religion was specially privileged or underprivileged. That was well-within constitutional bounds.