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]

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.

We all follow the laws the best we can and live according to our own moral compass, the issue is not whether or not the issue is legal (although people seem to just keep repeating "it's the law" like that is somehow the crux of the issue) - it is whether it should be. By your logic if a religious belief even touches your rights it should be fought with any legal means at your disposal. That is of course your right and I doubt anyone here would want it any other way.

The flip side is that your situation should infringe on his rights no more than strictly necessary. After all if he is not going out of his way to harm you or reduce your happiness, why should he lose rights because hypothetically a situation could arise in which you want a bagel that he happens to be selling and he doesn't want to sell it to you? Are we really so petty a society that every kid has to be invited to the birthday party or else the parents will get involved? Why would a person even care unless the discrimination was so rampant that their choices were actually limited in a meaningful way. Does it truly matter if one bakery in a hundred doesn't treat you with the respect you deserve? Perhaps it would if that one bakery had the only bread you weren't allergic too, but that is an incredibly extreme example.

Do you know what the best way to change society is? To be happy and to let others see your happiness. If you treat people fairly and live a happy life it doesn't matter if every other person acts like (forgive the crudity) a butt-head.

 

[Forged Fury]

With the signing of the law, it will be interesting to see what GenCon does. If they were smart, they'd publicize the cost to break their contract. I wouldn't be surprised if another municipality offered an economic incentive of like value to help them balance the books. If it works for college football coaches...

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

We all follow the laws the best we can and live according to our own moral compass, the issue is not whether or not the issue is legal (although people seem to just keep repeating "it's the law" like that is somehow the crux of the issue) - it is whether it should be. By your logic if a religious belief even touches your rights it should be fought with any legal means at your disposal. That is of course your right and I doubt anyone here would want it any other way.

The flip side is that your situation should infringe on his rights no more than strictly necessary. After all if he is not going out of his way to harm you or reduce your happiness, why should he lose rights because hypothetically a situation could arise in which you want a bagel that he happens to be selling and he doesn't want to sell it to you? Are we really so petty a society that every kid has to be invited to the birthday party or else the parents will get involved? Why would a person even care unless the discrimination was so rampant that their choices were actually limited in a meaningful way. Does it truly matter if one bakery in a hundred doesn't treat you with the respect you deserve? Perhaps it would if that one bakery had the only bread you weren't allergic too, but that is an incredibly extreme example.

Do you know what the best way to change society is? To be happy and to let others see your happiness. If you treat people fairly and live a happy life it doesn't matter if every other person acts like (forgive the crudity) a butt-head.

This isn't about bakeries or birthday parties though. First, parents aren't running a business, so they can invite or not invite whoever they like.

I don't care about a bakery - I care about getting medication at a pharmacy, getting proper treatment at an emergency room, getting a place to stay for the night in the only motel in town.

I can't be happy when I'm being treated as a non-person. Treat people fairly? Yeah, that would be nice wouldn't it? I sure would like it if businesses in Indiana treated me fairly.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

So you get to assert your values in the government, but I don't because I'm a person of faith? In this instance, I'm not asserting my religion, I'm asserting my values, which come from a variety of sources including my religion. Again, you're insisting that people of faith be denied full participation in society. Do you really not see the hypocrisy inherent in this position?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

You know I agree with a lot of that.. But I canthelp but notice nothing in your description stands out at a con... Just throw on a gamer shirt and some jeans and no one will bug you... Keep your bedroom in the bedroom at the con ..

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

You know I agree with a lot of that.. But I canthelp but notice nothing in your description stands out at a con... Just throw on a gamer shirt and some jeans and no one will bug you... Keep your bedroom in the bedroom at the con ..

In other words, go back in the closet so I don't make anyone but myself uncomfortable? That is exactly what you are saying.

Simply put...

No.

 

[graypariah]

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.

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.

The problem with this, is that we live in a very different world than 50 years ago. There is no indication that a significant number of business would even use this legislation to negatively impact people's lives. The keyword here is significant. I am sure that stories can be found that are sensationalized, but I don't know of a single small business that would refuse to hire a person with a different orientation or refuse to serve one. In fact there have been those of different orientations at every place that I worked and for the most part were treated with every bit of respect as anyone else. Sure some people (mostly older generations) acted weird about it, but that is just because it is so different from what they are use to. The US is not 1950s Alabama where people are getting lynched, it is 2015 and we all pretty much communicate online more than face to face.

I understand the concern that we will slip backwards as a society, but lets instead focus on hoping that we have come far enough not to need the crutch of law to prevent us from becoming hateful monsters.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

The problem with this, is that we live in a very different world than 50 years ago. There is no indication that a significant number of business would even use this legislation to negatively impact people's lives. The keyword here is significant. I am sure that stories can be found that are sensationalized, but I don't know of a single small business that would refuse to hire a person with a different orientation or refuse to serve one. In fact there have been those of different orientations at every place that I worked and for the most part were treated with every bit of respect as anyone else. Sure some people (mostly older generations) acted weird about it, but that is just because it is so different from what they are use to. The US is not 1950s Alabama where people are getting lynched, it is 2015 and we all pretty much communicate online more than face to face.

I understand the concern that we will slip backwards as a society, but lets instead focus on hoping that we have come far enough not to need the crutch of law to prevent us from becoming hateful monsters.

The hateful monsters are there, just waiting for an opportunity. Some of them are even in office (google Gordon Klingenschmitt).

 

[Morrus]

Guys, I may close this thread soon. With a couple of exceptions, it was remarkably civil - more so than many discussions about games! - and I'm really glad of that. However, I'm starting to sense some animosity creeping in at the edges now, and the law's passed and done. I'm heading out to my Pathfinder game, and I'll check in and see where things are when I get back.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What does a person's gender identity have to do with the bedroom?

More then it does about getting a burger at the ram....