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]

Isn't declaring a law anti constitutional the prerogative of the Supreme Court?

They get the final say, but any judge can make such a ruling. It's just that it will probably get kicked upstairs on appeal of they do so.

And I disagree with the method. You can't fight for civil right by violating someone else's rights.

It isn't a violation.

Why coudn't a country that champions democracy everywhere else in the world not manage to do this democratically?

We can, but it take time, and a lot of it. So people are using the other avenues afforded to them by our laws: free speech, the judiciary, etc., to hasten the pace.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

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.

Your choice to follow a system of morality doesn't apply to me. I will never ask that your right to practice your beliefs and morality be infringed...unless your practice infringes on my rights.

I do not follow a religion and I will never allow myself to be judged by any religion or any follower of a religion. Your morality does not apply to me. I don't play by your rules, I play by the rules (laws) of the government of this country and the state I live in. When a religion seeks to impose its rules on the government, I will fight it every time, with every legal means at my disposal.

 

[billd91]

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.

The problem is, when we've relied on systems in which there were no protections for classes of people against denial of goods, services, places to live, employment, and so on, those systems didn't work. They created second class citizens, something contrary to the principles on which this country was founded - that we're all created equal and with the same rights. Second class citizens don't have the privilege to live their lives as they wish if other people are allowed to have the privilege to deny them services. It appears to me that's what Kiraya_TiDrekan is fighting for and it's an uphill battle because these other people won't give up or share any of their privilege. There are, of course, some people who will be allies of second class citizens, but what are we supposed to do if they aren't distributed equally throughout the population or in enough numbers to ameliorate the effects of service deniers? Just tell the second class citizens in areas where allies are rare, "Sucks to be you?"

The US government has decided that it has a compelling interest to protect a number of classes of these second class citizens and does so. Yet there never seems to be an end to the number of classes that need to be created because privilege sure doesn't give up easy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your choice to follow a system of morality doesn't apply to me. I will never ask that your right to practice your beliefs and morality be infringed...unless your practice infringes on my rights.

I do not follow a religion and I will never allow myself to be judged by any religion or any follower of a religion. Your morality does not apply to me. I don't play by your rules, I play by the rules (laws) of the government of this country and the state I live in. When a religion seeks to impose its rules on the government, I will fight it every time, with every legal means at my disposal.

No one is forcing you to change. Some people just want a space where you will not disturb them...you can still go there if you follow there rules...no one will ask who you sleep with at the diner...if you just go to eat.

 

[Morrus]

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

You know we're, like, the same species, right? That the abiity to reason and hold moral opinions is divided by national borders?

 

[Morrus]

Heh. Gen Con doesn't even get a mention in this list of major reactions to the new law.

http://www.advocate.com/indiana/2015/03/26/immediate-examples-backlash-indianas-religious-freedom

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

No one is forcing you to change. Some people just want a space where you will not disturb them...you can still go there if you follow there rules...no one will ask who you sleep with at the diner...if you just go to eat.

I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way, not for people like me. I don't "pass" as a woman, yet. I have stubble. I have broad shoulders. I have a masculine sounding voice. And this law allows a business to refuse service based on those qualities.

Not to mention the double standard inherent in "following their rules" - its ok for a hetero couple to kiss eachother in a restaurant but not a homosexual couple? How is that even remotely ok?

 

[bmfrosty]

No one is forcing you to change. Some people just want a space where you will not disturb them...you can still go there if you follow there rules...no one will ask who you sleep with at the diner...if you just go to eat.

Don't ask don't tell? What if a man wanted to go eat at a diner with his boyfriend, and they held hands? Didn't hide that they were a couple? Would it be right for them to be kicked out of the diner?

Should we have a witch hunt?

 

[Cristian Andreu]

As someone completely foreign to internal US laws, what's the conflicting legislation about?

 

[Gnarl45]

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.

It's a bit more than physically harming or endangering someone. It's property, freedom of speech, habeas corpus, etc... Your founding fathers did a great job and wrote down your fundamental rights in a document called your constitution. Basically, nobody should be allowed to deny you of your constitutional rights in the name of his religion. Or something like that.

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.

That means restaurants, night clubs, taxis, public transportation, hospitals, graveyards, lawyers, etc... Doesn't that sound all too familiar to you? It would be like 50 years ago with the n-word replaced by gay.

It could be even worse than that. I don't know if you're aware of this but the catholic church made slavery of christians illegal very early in the middle ages. Some theologists of colonial times concluded that a person with black skin did not have a soul and therefore could not be a christian. That's how some of them justified the slave trade. This means that there's a precendent of religious beliefs that could allow a driver to send African Americans in the back of the bus like in "good old times".

Or how about this one. Most overweight people have excess weight because they eat too much. Gluttony is a capital sin. You see where I'm getting at.

It's really that easy to justify discrimination by invoking some obscur religious text.