86211
Post by: Asterios
http://www.polygon.com/2015/3/24/8285287/gen-con-threatens-the-governor-it-will-leave-the-state-over-indianas
Gen Con threatens the governor it will leave the state over Indiana's controversial SB 101
Gen Con LLC, the parent company the Gen Con hobby games convention, has issued a formal letter to Republican Governor Mike Pence in light of the passage of State Bill 101. The controversial "religious freedom" bill, as the Indianapolis Star refers to it, would offer legal protection under which Indiana business owners could refuse service to same-sex couples.
Gen Con LLC's CEO and owner, Adrian Swartout, said in a letter made public today that passage of the bill "will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years."
Gen Con is currently Indianapolis Convention Center's largest annual convention, bringing the city tens of millions of dollars in revenue. It was originally held in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin in the late 1960s and organized by none other than Gary Gygax, the father of modern role-playing games. Since then the event has morphed into a four-day event combining tabletop miniatures, board games, video games and live-action role-playing games. It regularly creates in excess of $50 million in revenue for the city of Indianapolis.
"Last year, Gen Con hosted more than 56,000 attendees from more than 40 different countries and all 50 states," Swartout wrote to the governor. " Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds. We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention.
"Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy."
Based in Seattle, Washington, Gen Con LLC signed a long term agreement with Visit Indy to host the Gen Con event at the Indianapolis Convention Center through the year 2020. The passage of SB 101 seems to run the risk of putting that relationship in jeopardy.
In 2011 the Convention Center increased capacity to more than half a million square feet of floor space, adding on roughly 200,0000 square feet of floor space at a cost of over $275 million, the Indianapolis Star reports. That addition was intended to serve Gen Con and its annual legions of attendees, but also to court the return of the annual NRA convention, which will visit the city in 2019 and 2023.
PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Good for GenCon.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
Good for GenCon!
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Yeah good for gencon, but whats that about that bill? Do they have to be confirmed homosexuals to deny them service or will suspicion be enough?
242
Post by: Bookwrack
 Torga_DW wrote:Yeah good for gencon, but whats that about that bill? Do they have to be confirmed homosexuals to deny them service or will suspicion be enough?
You're putting waaaaay more thought into it than anyone who supports it ever has.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Asterios wrote:PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
No clue, but I'm sure that quite a number of cities will be courting them if they do move. They'll probably be able to go anywhere they want.
51859
Post by: Squidmanlolz
 Platuan4th wrote:Asterios wrote:PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
No clue, but I'm sure that quite a number of cities will be courting them if they do move. They'll probably be able to go anywhere they want.
Come on NY/NJ area!
56277
Post by: Eldarain
How are things like this still a thing?
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
NY would be great. Or Connecticut.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Gen for GoodCon.
51859
Post by: Squidmanlolz
Con for GoodGen.
91
Post by: Hordini
forCon good Gen.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
37231
Post by: d-usa
Gen and the Conograms?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Gensie and the Pussycons.
47598
Post by: motyak
Let's call it there Gen-tlemen, back to the topic
514
Post by: Orlanth
This is not about 'discrimination' its about allowance of non participation.
The legislation is to give protection to those who would otherwise be forced to provide services supporting an ethos they do not agree with.
According to this article:
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/23/indiana-house-oks-controversial-religious-freedom-bill/70336706/
Nineteen other states have similar legislation and it is being consider by others.
Nor is the legislation targeted at homosexuals, it permits non-participation on any grounds that offends the religions concerned.
86211
Post by: Asterios
yeah me and a friend of mine were discussing this, what it comes down to is who has what right? where does certain rights end or begin? whos rights deserve consideration? this is a messy situation that will end up going to the Supreme Court.
514
Post by: Orlanth
'Equal rights' legislation has gone too far and consequently enforced an embracing of different ideologies, as opposed to promoting equality between them. and a counterbalance of permission of non-participation is to be expected if actual equality is to be maintained.
I looked at the bill, it does not mention LGBT or any associated group at all in any way, the non-participation can be taken in any direction.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101
93221
Post by: Lance845
This is the very definition of discrimination. If you want to treat somebody different then you treat other people for any reason that is not breaking the law you are discriminating against them. Done. Nothing else.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your religion belongs in your house and your church. You are allowed to talk about it anywhere else you want because free speech, but you cannot ACT on it and it sure as hell stays out of law.
This is hate trying to justify itself and gain legal backing. Or maybe if this law passes some KKK members can start a new religion and start to tell black people they don't "serve their kind here" because of their faith. Ridiculous.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Orlanth wrote:
I looked at the bill, it does not mention LGBT or any associated group at all in any way, the non-participation can be taken in any direction.
Its an obvious end-run around Baskin v. Bogan.
86211
Post by: Asterios
Lance845 wrote:
This is the very definition of discrimination. If you want to treat somebody different then you treat other people for any reason that is not breaking the law you are discriminating against them. Done. Nothing else.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your religion belongs in your house and your church. You are allowed to talk about it anywhere else you want because free speech, but you cannot ACT on it and it sure as hell stays out of law.
This is hate trying to justify itself and gain legal backing. Or maybe if this law passes some KKK members can start a new religion and start to tell black people they don't "serve their kind here" because of their faith. Ridiculous.
but (devil's advocate here) are people not allowed their own religious beliefs on their personal property?
by your own statement, a persons sexual preference or such could only be allowed in their home and specific establishments, why should a persons sexual choice have precedence over a persons religious beliefs?
how many "Blacks" or "Jews" or any other race other then "white" do you see in the KKK ?
not to mention religions are discriminatory by their very being.
no matter how you look at it, this is not as clear cut as we would like it.
my simple solution, nothing forces people to have to go to said establishments either.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Asterios wrote:Lance845 wrote:
This is the very definition of discrimination. If you want to treat somebody different then you treat other people for any reason that is not breaking the law you are discriminating against them. Done. Nothing else.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your religion belongs in your house and your church. You are allowed to talk about it anywhere else you want because free speech, but you cannot ACT on it and it sure as hell stays out of law.
This is hate trying to justify itself and gain legal backing. Or maybe if this law passes some KKK members can start a new religion and start to tell black people they don't "serve their kind here" because of their faith. Ridiculous.
but (devil's advocate here) are people not allowed their own religious beliefs on their personal property?
by your own statement, a persons sexual preference or such could only be allowed in their home and specific establishments, why should a persons sexual choice have precedence over a persons religious beliefs?
how many "Blacks" or "Jews" or any other race other then "white" do you see in the KKK ?
not to mention religions are discriminatory by their very being.
no matter how you look at it, this is not as clear cut as we would like it.
my simple solution, nothing forces people to have to go to said establishments either.
1) You are allowed your religious beliefs where ever you are in 'merica. You just are not allowed to treat people differently because of it.
2) Nobody who is (insert sexual orientation or anything else) is denying you the right to buy a hamburger because they are (insert whatever they are). It is not discrimination until you start treating them differently. Nobody's anything takes precedence. Everyone gets treated the same. Thats what non discrimination laws were created for.
3) religions are not discriminatory. In fact, most if not all religions are about accepting other people. Religious PEOPLE on the other hand...
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
From another article that I read (via George Takei's FB page), it's been said that this bill is very, VERY close to the one that the SC shot down in AZ, with there being some expectation of similar in other parts of the US that have similar laws.
Personally, I see this as being yet another set of "Jim Crow" laws. Personally, if I were a business owner and didn't want to serve certain people, I would turn my business into a "private club" wherein I can control the "membership" of said "club" (Utah has done this with some drinking establishments so they can serve real beer and the like). Otherwise, I feel that if you are an "open to the public" business you should have to serve everyone (except people with no shirt and no shoes, apparently)
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.
86211
Post by: Asterios
Lance845 wrote:Asterios wrote:Lance845 wrote:
This is the very definition of discrimination. If you want to treat somebody different then you treat other people for any reason that is not breaking the law you are discriminating against them. Done. Nothing else.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your religion belongs in your house and your church. You are allowed to talk about it anywhere else you want because free speech, but you cannot ACT on it and it sure as hell stays out of law.
This is hate trying to justify itself and gain legal backing. Or maybe if this law passes some KKK members can start a new religion and start to tell black people they don't "serve their kind here" because of their faith. Ridiculous.
but (devil's advocate here) are people not allowed their own religious beliefs on their personal property?
by your own statement, a persons sexual preference or such could only be allowed in their home and specific establishments, why should a persons sexual choice have precedence over a persons religious beliefs?
how many "Blacks" or "Jews" or any other race other then "white" do you see in the KKK ?
not to mention religions are discriminatory by their very being.
no matter how you look at it, this is not as clear cut as we would like it.
my simple solution, nothing forces people to have to go to said establishments either.
1) You are allowed your religious beliefs where ever you are in 'merica. You just are not allowed to treat people differently because of it.
2) Nobody who is (insert sexual orientation or anything else) is denying you the right to buy a hamburger because they are (insert whatever they are). It is not discrimination until you start treating them differently. Nobody's anything takes precedence. Everyone gets treated the same. Thats what non discrimination laws were created for.
3) religions are not discriminatory. In fact, most if not all religions are about accepting other people. Religious PEOPLE on the other hand...
1: and yet you wish to discriminate against people with religious beliefs, and sadly this has been tested with Hobby Lobby not having to pay for medical coverage that has certain abortion pills because it is against their religious beliefs, yet the supreme court upheld their belief even going against the Affordable care act.
2: you would be surprised how discrimination goes both ways, ?I have friends who are gay/lesbian and I have seen discrimination from gays and lesbians as much as from those who are "straight"
3: religions are discriminatory as long as your not part of their religion, look at the catholic religion and the Islamic religions, then you have the extremists that are just plain ugly. and that comes down to religion is made up of religious people.
just to be clear this is not my stance in regards to refusing service, just that this matter is not as clear cut as some people would think.
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.
if GenCon comes to Cali (which it would be a good chance) it will be too Sacramento, LA or San Francisco/San Jose areas.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
.....but.......Santa Cruz
86211
Post by: Asterios
has no where to hold it, not too mention traffic on the 17 would be ugly.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I know. It would be awesome though..
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:From another article that I read (via George Takei's FB page), it's been said that this bill is very, VERY close to the one that the SC shot down in AZ, with there being some expectation of similar in other parts of the US that have similar laws.
Personally, I see this as being yet another set of "Jim Crow" laws. Personally, if I were a business owner and didn't want to serve certain people, I would turn my business into a "private club" wherein I can control the "membership" of said "club" (Utah has done this with some drinking establishments so they can serve real beer and the like). Otherwise, I feel that if you are an "open to the public" business you should have to serve everyone (except people with no shirt and no shoes, apparently)
I also seem them as another set of Jim Crow laws, and frankly, they have no place in 21st century America.
Being irreligious myself, I would never dare to refuse service to a person wearing a cross necklace, a Star of David, a turban, etc. despite the fact that I don't agree with a single one of their religious views. That kind of tribal thinking has no use in modern society.
Ironically, the proponents of laws like these would be the first to cry foul if a Muslim (or any other minority religion or group) refused to do business with them on basis of "religious freedom."
93221
Post by: Lance845
Asterios wrote:Lance845 wrote:Asterios wrote: 1: and yet you wish to discriminate against people with religious beliefs, and sadly this has been tested with Hobby Lobby not having to pay for medical coverage that has certain abortion pills because it is against their religious beliefs, yet the supreme court upheld their belief even going against the Affordable care act. 2: you would be surprised how discrimination goes both ways, ?I have friends who are gay/lesbian and I have seen discrimination from gays and lesbians as much as from those who are "straight" 3: religions are discriminatory as long as your not part of their religion, look at the catholic religion and the Islamic religions, then you have the extremists that are just plain ugly. and that comes down to religion is made up of religious people. just to be clear this is not my stance in regards to refusing service, just that this matter is not as clear cut as some people would think. hotsauceman1 wrote:Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.
if GenCon comes to Cali (which it would be a good chance) it will be too Sacramento, LA or San Francisco/San Jose areas.
1) which is disgusting. Because it wasn't abortion pills it was birth control pills in general that was up for debate for a long time. Birth control pills are used to treat a great number of medical conditions. They are expensive as hell, and they are prescription. Healthcare SHOULD be paying for them and the business should not have a right to discriminate. Lets just be blunt and say what people allow/don't allow is basically insane these days. 2) agree. Anyone who discriminates is a monster and if I ever walked into a place a business that told me I couldn't be there because I was x I would do what i could to take legal action against them because they degrade my community and I would prefer the next generation does not grow up with that garbage around. 3) I was raised roman catholic. The people involved in the church are monsters. The book itself tells you to accept everyone. It is very specifically not your place to judge anyway (he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that). The job of Christians is to be good people. The job of judgment and persecution resides solely in the hands of god. Guess what? Islam, same god. Are their parts in the book that say other crap too? Yeah. Mostly crap edited a long ways back by the same type of people who discriminate today back when the church was running crap in Europe like nobody's business. Religion, at it's core, is about acceptance. People feth that up. But this is an entirely different discussion (a fun one but not this one). It's cool that it's not your opinion. Understood. Just saying, it is very clear. If you discriminate... then you discriminate. It is not discrimination to deny someone the right to discriminate. That's just stupid.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
By all means, let's move more stuff to the coasts...
Or hows about Minneapolis? Major international airport, nice people, not completely asinine traffic... and hot dish. Sounds pretty good to me.
37231
Post by: d-usa
We have a "able to refuse service to anyone if your religion is against whatever" bill moving through the Oklahoma legislature right now.
Someone managed to attach an amendment that requires every business to post a sign on their window listing all the groups that will be refused service.
They figured that if we are going to have the modern equivalent of "no coloreds allowed" laws, then we should have the "no coloreds allowed" signs to go along with it so everyone knows who the bigots are.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Lance845 wrote:
1) which is disgusting. Because it wasn't abortion pills it was birth control pills in general that was up for debate for a long time. Birth control pills are used to treat a great number of medical conditions. They are expensive as hell, and they are prescription. Healthcare SHOULD be paying for them and the business should not have a right to discriminate. Lets just be blunt and say what people allow/don't allow is basically insane these days.
Why?
2) agree. Anyone who discriminates is a monster and if I ever walked into a place a business that told me I couldn't be there because I was x I would do what i could to take legal action against them because they degrade my community and I would prefer the next generation does not grow up with that garbage around.
Hope you like being a monster. We all make discriminatory choices. Every day.
3) I was raised roman catholic. The people involved in the church are monsters. The book itself tells you to accept everyone. It is very specifically not your place to judge anyway (he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that). The job of Christians is to be good people. The job of judgment and persecution resides solely in the hands of god. Guess what? Islam, same god. Are their parts in the book that say other crap too? Yeah. Mostly crap edited a long ways back by the same type of people who discriminate today back when the church was running crap in Europe like nobody's business. Religion, at it's core, is about acceptance. People feth that up.
Pretty broad fething brush you're using to paint, don't you think? Glad to know that if I wasn't a monster before, I am because I'm Catholic.
18698
Post by: kronk
I hope they don't move. GenCon is just a few hours drive for me.
Unless they move to Chicago. Then, yay!
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 kronk wrote:I hope they don't move. GenCon is just a few hours drive for me.
Unless they move to Chicago. Then, yay!
I probably wouldn't go again if they moved. 80 minute drive + St. Elmo's at least two nights I'm there pretty much seal it up for me in Indy.
18698
Post by: kronk
It would have to be somewhere that can host 50,000 people.
That was Milwaukee's problem. There just were not enough Hotel rooms, parking, and other gak you need to make it work.
92395
Post by: Computron
No one is talking about banning homosexuals from cafes. What this has mostly been about is religious people who run small motels, B&Bs not wanting such couples as guests. There have also been those cases where cake makers have not wanted to deal with cakes of a nature they find offensive.
No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The LGBT community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.
Cake shops should be allowed to say no to cake decoration they personally find objectionable - it certainly works the other way.
Christians have been refused by cake shops owned by gay people when they wanted cakes decorated with pro-traditional marriage messages.
221
Post by: Frazzled
What Orlanth said actually. It just says vendors' religious preferences will be respected, and they won't be driven out of business by activists because of it. Gencon can suck it. Just as Gencon has the right to not do business there, the bill just gives people the right to not do business with them.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Computron wrote:No one is talking about banning homosexuals from cafes. What this has mostly been about is religious people who run small motels, B& Bs not wanting such couples as guests. There have also been those cases where cake makers have not wanted to deal with cakes of a nature they find offensive. No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The LGBT community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.
No one is talking about banning blacks from cafes. What this has mostly been about is religious people who run small motels, B& Bs not wanting such couples as guests. There have also been those cases where cake makers have not wanted to deal with cakes of a nature they find offensive. No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The black community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way. Computron wrote: Cake shops should be allowed to say no to cake decoration they personally find objectionable - it certainly works the other way. Christians have been refused by cake shops owned by gay people when they wanted cakes decorated with pro-traditional marriage messages
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide proof of this statement. And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...
221
Post by: Frazzled
And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...
Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 Frazzled wrote:
And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...
Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.
I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.
221
Post by: Frazzled
PhantomViper wrote: Frazzled wrote:
And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...
Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.
I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour. No person should be forced to do business with someone else they don't like, especially if its based on religious reasons. Its a basic libertarian position.
Should you be forced to business with the local skinhead party? Should I be forced to suffer cat lovers to live? I think not.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 d-usa wrote:We have a "able to refuse service to anyone if your religion is against whatever" bill moving through the Oklahoma legislature right now.
Someone managed to attach an amendment that requires every business to post a sign on their window listing all the groups that will be refused service.
They figured that if we are going to have the modern equivalent of "no coloreds allowed" laws, then we should have the "no coloreds allowed" signs to go along with it so everyone knows who the bigots are.
Much as I hate to say it, this is the way to do it because honestly, if I see that sign, Im turning right the feth around. I think the ONLY way I could see myself using a shop owned by an donkey cave is if it's such a ridiculously specialist shop that I couldn't reasonably get whatever Im looking for elsewhere.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Frazzled wrote: Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour.
Actually it does. Its the actual, literal, textbook definition of bigotry: Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.
Frazzled wrote: No person should be forced to do business with someone else they don't like, especially if its based on religious reasons. Its a basic libertarian position. Should you be forced to business with the local skinhead party? Should I be forced to suffer cat lovers to live? I think not.
Yes, they should, because we leave in a society where law > religion, thankfully (or at least some of us do). Also a political party isn't a person and as such isn't protected by the same anti-discrimination laws (and any type of Nazi party is generally verboten over here). But if a skinhead enters a store, he should be served just like anyone else.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Frazzled wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Frazzled wrote:
And its nice to see that all the usual suspects have come out in defence of the bigots, as usual...
Nice to see the usual posters attacking other posters on Dakka.
I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour. No person should be forced to do business with someone else they don't like, especially if its based on religious reasons. Its a basic libertarian position.
They're not. They have the option of shutting down the store.
IMO, if you're in the business of selling goods or services to the public then that's what you do; you're not allowed to cherry-pick. It'd kinda like having a hardline muslim bartender refusing to serve alcohol.
57098
Post by: carlos13th
Computron wrote:
No one would expect a halal butcher to provide kosher meat, if equality is to exist then both sides have to be reasonable. The LGBT community are being political, they are not being discriminated against in any meaningful way.
You know that's not even close to the same thing right. It's much closer to a halal butcher telling a Jewish person he refuses to serve them due to being Jewish no matter what the Jewish person walks in to buy. No one is expecting people to provide a new service just for gay people they are expecting people who are gay to be allowed the same service as anyone else due to the fact they are gay.
Do you really think people in the lbgt community are not discrimated agaisnt in any meaningful way?
221
Post by: Frazzled
PhantomViper wrote: Frazzled wrote: Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its bigoted behaviour.
Actually it does. Its the actual, literal, textbook definition of bigotry: Bigotry is a state of mind where a person obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. S.
Thats asinine. Under that definition if you don't like serial kilers you're a bigot. Automatically Appended Next Post:
They're not. They have the option of shutting down the store.
IMO, if you're in the business of selling goods or services to the public then that's what you do; you're not allowed to cherry-pick. It'd kinda like having a hardline muslim bartender refusing to serve alcohol.
Again, so should a Jew be forced to serve a Nazi? Should a Zydeco band be forced to play at a Klan rally? Should a gay bakery be forced to serve breeders? EDIT: for the record, I've used your argument as well, because I respect it. I just moon anyone from the Left Coast getting hipster on anyone anywhere else. Indiana will tell them to stick their convention where the sun don't shine.
5394
Post by: reds8n
One would suggest that a dislike of people who murder multiple people is not irrational or unfair perhaps.
should a Jew be forced to serve a Nazi?
In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.
221
Post by: Frazzled
In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.
WHY? Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship. These are private parties free to contract OR NOT CONTRACT. Thats time honored common law tradition back to Merry Old England.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Because your business isn't actually your business. It's the public's Duh.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 cincydooley wrote:
Because your business isn't actually your business. It's the public's Duh.
WELCOME COMRADE!!! Line ends two blocks back!!
Edit
WAIT!! I'm sorry Comrade I just now notice the Red Star medal. Front of the line with you
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Lord Scythican wrote:If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.
I feel the same way. It's the reason that I didn't patronize Starbucks at all during their #racismwithyourcoffee campaign.
I'm of the belief that, in 2015 America, with the proliferation of information, businesses that choose not to serve all potential customers will be less successful than they would be otherwise. But they should be granted that prerogative.
People continue to look at this through the lens of the 1940s-60s, and IMO that's not entirely appropriate because the cultural climate isn't remotely similar to what it was then, despite all the racial tension we still have.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Lord Scythican wrote:If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.
What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.
84790
Post by: zerosignal
Frazzled wrote:
In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.
WHY?
Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship.
These are private parties free to contract OR NOT CONTRACT. Thats time honored common law tradition back to Merry Old England.
Oh, England has some great old traditions.
Like, y'know, slavery, and invading other people's countries and taking their tea.
(I love tea).
221
Post by: Frazzled
cincydooley wrote: Because your business isn't actually your business. It's the public's Duh.
Not sure if serious... 
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Prestor Jon wrote: Lord Scythican wrote:If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.
What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.
This probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
221
Post by: Frazzled
Oh, England has some great old traditions.
Like, y'know, slavery, and invading other people's countries and taking their tea.
(I love tea).
Britain the only empire that would kick your ass for a nice afternoon beverage. 
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Lord Scythican wrote:If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.
But if you were gay surely you'd have to still support something that had tambourines as an accessory?  Automatically Appended Next Post: zerosignal wrote:
Oh, England has some great old traditions.
Like, y'know, slavery, and invading other people's countries and taking their tea.
(I love tea).
you forgot forcing people to buy your drugs. Classy moment in history that one.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Indeed.
84790
Post by: zerosignal
So discrimination is fine, if it's in private?...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Thats the libertarian and common law argument. Absent a monopoly, someone should not be forced to work or serve someone they don't want to. No shirt, no shoes, swastika tat NO SERVICE YOU HITLERITE! EDIT: why, if I am a proprietor should I be forced to serve the guy who just put into to make the ballot making it a capital crime to be gay in California? I abhor such nonsense and should be able to throw that *)^tard out on his ass. EDIT: The above policy should not apply to corporations. If you want the protections of a distinct corporate body, you should not have the rights of living person.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I'm pretty sure many cities would happily court Gen Con it's a massive affair and such.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Funding political groups is fine.
I don't agree with it, but if they want to fund a lobby group I don't see how it's any different to any other special interest group.
If you censored them due to disagreeing with their stance, THAT i would have a problem with.
Holy crap i think i'm turning libertarian....just what have you done to me dakka?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hollismason wrote:I'm pretty sure many cities would happily court Gen Con it's a massive affair and such.
And rightly so. GenCon should be free to contract with whomever it wants. Other cities should be free to court it. Thats how free enterprise is supposed to work. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Bullockist wrote:Funding political groups is fine.
I don't agree with it, but if they want to fund a lobby group I don't see how it's any different to any other special interest group.
If you censored them due to disagreeing with their stance, THAT i would have a problem with.
Holy crap i think i'm turning libertarian....just what have you done to me dakka?
You've just taken your first step into a larger universe. 
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Prestor Jon wrote:
That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.
Oh I agree, I was just guessing that controversy was the reason Lord Scythican doesn't do business with them.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Or at least that's how it should be.
If a business owner wants to be a dick and not accept people's money because they have a different opinion about something, shouldn't that be their right?
The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.
To do such a thing is fiscally idiotic, but let them hang themselves if they want to, they have the right to do it.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Frazzled wrote:
Thats the libertarian and common law argument. Absent a monopoly, someone should not be forced to work or serve someone they don't want to. No shirt, no shoes, swastika tat NO SERVICE YOU HITLERITE!
EDIT: The above policy should not apply to corporations. If you want the protections of a distinct corporate body, you should not have the rights of living person.
Exactly. Contract rights are the keystone of a free society. You can enter into a contract with a person of your choosing or not enter into a contract with a person if you don't want to.
For a less controversial example, say I have tickets to a Duke vs UNC baseketball game but I can't go so I want to sell them to somebody else. Let's say I'm a Duke fan so I don't want to sell them to a UNC fan so I choose to descrinimate against UNC fans and only sell my tickets to another Duke fan. That's not illegal, it doesn't make anybody into a horrible monster, it's just a private transaction between two parties that willfully consented to the transaction.
The state cannot descriminate because it represents and works for everybody equally (at least in theory). Private individuals are free to hold the beliefs they want and conduct business with whomever they want. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Alex C wrote:We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Or at least that's how it should be.
If a business owner wants to be a dick and not accept people's money because they have a different opinion about something, shouldn't that be their right?
The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.
To do such a thing is fiscally idiotic, but let them hang themselves if they want to, they have the right to do it.
Petard hoisting for everyone!
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Frazzled wrote:
Thats asinine. Under that definition if you don't like serial kilers you're a bigot.
I don't think that anyone considers disliking serial killers to be irrational or unfair.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, so should a Jew be forced to serve a Nazi? Should a Zydeco band be forced to play at a Klan rally?
Should a gay bakery be forced to serve breeders?
Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to serve someone because they are black, or asian, or latino? Automatically Appended Next Post: Alex C wrote:
The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.
Should a business owner be allowed to refuse service to someone because they are black? Or Jewish?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alex C wrote:We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Or at least that's how it should be.
If a business owner wants to be a dick and not accept people's money because they have a different opinion about something, shouldn't that be their right?
The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.
To do such a thing is fiscally idiotic, but let them hang themselves if they want to, they have the right to do it.
EXCELSIOR!
And if I don't like their policy I don't have to buy from them and am free to use my First Amendment rights to express that to everyone else, even to stage a boycott of their products until they change, or are driven out of business and replaced by persons of less neanderthalic views. Automatically Appended Next Post: Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to serve someone because they are black, or asian, or latino?
Correct. If a business owner wants to cut himself off from good business he should be allowed to.
Those he won't do business with are free to find other person who will take their money; use their freedom of speech to express their opinions of him and his service, up to organizeing legal boycotts/marketing/etc; set up their own business and drive the  out of business.
Corporate entities, monopolies, and governments should NOT have this ability however, as they are all facets of government power.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Prestor Jon wrote:
That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.
I disagree entirely. By supporting Chik-fil-a you are putting money into the hands of the owners. In doing so you are providing them with a percentage of profits that they can then turn and use for their idiotic agendas.
Then there is this:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-mea-culpa-i-have-changed-my-mind/
67621
Post by: Forar
My friends and I are tentatively visiting Gencon for the first time this year.
Reading this letter makes me all the happier to have supported them. I applaud them taking a stance that could potentially harm their bottom line (depending on how many people feel their stance is unreasonable) and even throw the entire convention into upheaval (should they choose to move to another city).
I'm sure this wasn't written and shared lightly.
86211
Post by: Asterios
Ok for those of you who think that this is a clear cut open and shut case that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to other ethnicities and sexual preferences and religious beliefs and so on since they are protected by the constitution, then answer this, do you think it is right for a bunch of people to walk into a mall all armed with pistols on their belt, and were talking civilians not police or military, but just everyday citizens, do you think that is right? got news for you, according to the constitution it should be since we are given the right "to keep and bear arms", yet that right has been taken away from us, do you think it is right for a bunch of people in a neighborhood who own their homes, keep nice houses and pay their bills, should have their homes yanked out from under them to tear down and build a strip mall ? evidently the supreme court thinks its ok.
so to think a law like the one being proposed in Indiana and elsewhere is going to be an open and shut case, is not good thinking, I feel this situation is going to shake up the country.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Lord Scythican wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.
I disagree entirely. By supporting Chik-fil-a you are putting money into the hands of the owners. In doing so you are providing them with a percentage of profits that they can then turn and use for their idiotic agendas.
Then there is this:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-mea-culpa-i-have-changed-my-mind/
Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not descriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themsevles in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.
Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asterios wrote:Ok for those of you who think that this is a clear cut open and shut case that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to other ethnicities and sexual preferences and religious beliefs and so on since they are protected by the constitution, then answer this, do you think it is right for a bunch of people to walk into a mall all armed with pistols on their belt, and were talking civilians not police or military, but just everyday citizens, do you think that is right? got news for you, according to the constitution it should be since we are given the right "to keep and bear arms", yet that right has been taken away from us, do you think it is right for a bunch of people in a neighborhood who own their homes, keep nice houses and pay their bills, should have their homes yanked out from under them to tear down and build a strip mall ? evidently the supreme court thinks its ok.
so to think a law like the one being proposed in Indiana and elsewhere is going to be an open and shut case, is not good thinking, I feel this situation is going to shake up the country.
What's wrong with US citizens being armed? They're not doing anything wrong in your scenario, they're just shopping at a mall. Don't fear your neighbors or inanimate objects, they're people just like you. Owning a firearm doesn't turn someone into some crazed bloodthirsty psychopath.
86211
Post by: Asterios
Prestor Jon wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:Ok for those of you who think that this is a clear cut open and shut case that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to other ethnicities and sexual preferences and religious beliefs and so on since they are protected by the constitution, then answer this, do you think it is right for a bunch of people to walk into a mall all armed with pistols on their belt, and were talking civilians not police or military, but just everyday citizens, do you think that is right? got news for you, according to the constitution it should be since we are given the right "to keep and bear arms", yet that right has been taken away from us, do you think it is right for a bunch of people in a neighborhood who own their homes, keep nice houses and pay their bills, should have their homes yanked out from under them to tear down and build a strip mall ? evidently the supreme court thinks its ok.
so to think a law like the one being proposed in Indiana and elsewhere is going to be an open and shut case, is not good thinking, I feel this situation is going to shake up the country.
What's wrong with US citizens being armed? They're not doing anything wrong in your scenario, they're just shopping at a mall. Don't fear your neighbors or inanimate objects, they're people just like you. Owning a firearm doesn't turn someone into some crazed bloodthirsty psychopath.
nothing wrong, and no it doesn't, but it is against the law in many places to even carry a fire arm in the open, the most simple and basic laws given to us, and it is removed without forethought by some.
as it goes I can see where this law is good, since it will tell people who discriminates or whatever and I would rather know this then to not know this and go into the establishment and discover some nasty surprise in my food or whatever.
also remember the 1st. amendment gives people the right to be @$$holes, the first and foremost of our rights, and it is trampled all over the place by others claiming their right to this and that.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Asterios wrote:
as it goes I can see where this law is good, since it will tell people who discriminates or whatever and I would rather know this then to not know this and go into the establishment and discover some nasty surprise in my food or whatever.
also remember the 1st. amendment gives people the right to be @$$holes, the first and foremost of our rights, and it is trampled all over the place by others claiming their right to this and that.
As I said earlier, I think a law like this is only "good" insofar as there is mandatory signage that a business must use.
This way, if "you" are a business exercising that right to be a donkey cave, I can see that before I cross through that door and I can take my money elsewhere. I personally support equality in most cases (think things tend to get far too nebulous if we enter into the realm of Trans discussions), and I personally feel that if you refuse to serve blacks, asians, islanders, gays, uncomfortably hairy, etc. people then I refuse to give you money for goods that I desire.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Prestor Jon wrote:
Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.
Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.
You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.
First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.
"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"
86211
Post by: Asterios
Lord Scythican wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.
Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.
You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.
First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.
"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"
the problem is, say you do not give your money to groups to do that, but instead spend it on porn and filth? the thing of it is, how do we know where businesses money goes to once they get it, why are people even prying into other peoples private lives? who gives a rats behind what people are doing in their private lives? its called private, so leave it like that. also tell me are you going to boycott any and all businesses that give money to the Boy Scouts? if you do your gonna run out of places to go to.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Asterios wrote: Lord Scythican wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.
Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.
You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.
First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.
"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"
the problem is, say you do not give your money to groups to do that, but instead spend it on porn and filth? the thing of it is, how do we know where businesses money goes to once they get it, why are people even prying into other peoples private lives? who gives a rats behind what people are doing in their private lives? its called private, so leave it like that. also tell me are you going to boycott any and all businesses that give money to the Boy Scouts? if you do your gonna run out of places to go to.
Porn and filth is personal. It is not an agenda that affects a large group of people. Before you say "but it affects the people who make it", yeah who cares? Those people want you to spend the money on them.
If you make money from me, you are free to spend it on yourself however you see fit. You want to watch porn all day with fine. You want to take the same money and spend it harming someone other than yourself, then it is not fine.
Regardless I now know I care not for your opinion. Another name to add to the blocked list of jerks on dakka. 
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
PhantomViper wrote:
I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.
If you think that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a group unless it's one you feel close to, then you'd have to wonder if calling others bigots that fast is a smart choice.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
 Sigvatr wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.
If you think that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a group unless it's one you feel close to, then you'd have to wonder if calling others bigots that fast is a smart choice.
Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?
18698
Post by: kronk
PhantomViper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.
If you think that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a group unless it's one you feel close to, then you'd have to wonder if calling others bigots that fast is a smart choice.
Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?
Calling people bigots is discriminatory against bigots. 
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Bad Gencon. You really shouldn't be taking any stances on political issues that don't concern you.
I believe that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The only thing wrong with this law is that its too specific, it should be much broader. But as it is it only increases freedom, and that isn't a bad thing.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Lord Scythican wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.
Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.
You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.
First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.
"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"
It's personal beliefs and private behavior. You don't want the Chik-fil-A owners to care about how gay people conduct themselves in their personal lives but you want to condemn the owners for their personal beliefs. Chik-fil-A isn't refusing to provide service to gay people, isn't refusing to hire gay people, isn't passing any laws that persecute gay people. They have personal religious beliefs, they spend money in accordance to those beliefs. You don't have to buy their chicken sandwichs, I don't either, but it's not as if society can't function and people can't coexist if don't all hold the exact same personal beliefs, tolerance goes both ways.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Didnt we have that cake discrimination thing before? a business has the right to refuse service. dont give out a reason, no problems. Its when people get vocal that dumb things start happening. Edit: Also yes please come to cali. i dont think there really is a big miniatures convention anywhere around here :( LA convention center is huge 
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
hotsauceman1 wrote:Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.
Santa Cruz? If they come to Cali, they'll either go to San Diego or to the Anaheim Convention Center. They'd be crazy to go anywhere else.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Sigvatr wrote:
Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.
Discriminating against discriminators is discriminating.....
86211
Post by: Asterios
Lord Scythican wrote:Asterios wrote: Lord Scythican wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.
Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.
You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.
First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.
"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"
the problem is, say you do not give your money to groups to do that, but instead spend it on porn and filth? the thing of it is, how do we know where businesses money goes to once they get it, why are people even prying into other peoples private lives? who gives a rats behind what people are doing in their private lives? its called private, so leave it like that. also tell me are you going to boycott any and all businesses that give money to the Boy Scouts? if you do your gonna run out of places to go to.
Porn and filth is personal. It is not an agenda that affects a large group of people. Before you say "but it affects the people who make it", yeah who cares? Those people want you to spend the money on them.
If you make money from me, you are free to spend it on yourself however you see fit. You want to watch porn all day with fine. You want to take the same money and spend it harming someone other than yourself, then it is not fine.
Regardless I now know I care not for your opinion. Another name to add to the blocked list of jerks on dakka.
so your discriminating against me, since I think such a law is wrong, but may well be within their rights as given by the constitution ? whos the one discriminating here now?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Sigvatr wrote:
Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.
I agree with you completely.
Now please point out to me where I've advocated that people should be discriminated against in any way because of their religion?
18698
Post by: kronk
Asterios wrote:
so your discriminating against me, since I think such a law is wrong, but may well be within their rights as given by the constitution ? whos the one discriminating here now?
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Blocking you so he doesn't have to read your bs isn't discriminatory. It's just smart.
86211
Post by: Asterios
kronk wrote:Asterios wrote:
so your discriminating against me, since I think such a law is wrong, but may well be within their rights as given by the constitution ? whos the one discriminating here now?
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Blocking you so he doesn't have to read your bs isn't discriminatory. It's just smart.
hes denying my right to bore him to death with my 1st. amendment rights.
as it goes like I said this law is not as lack and white as some think it is, its a matter of whos equal rights are more.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Saying "people discriminating against discriminating people" isn't actually adding anything to the convo. It's flame bait at best. Because then it leads to discriminating against those who are discriminating other discriminators, and the cycle just continues. Discrimination is bad. In all its forms. If a person discriminates, they should be called out for it. But the cycle always continues. Because we, as a species, can't just get along. It's depressing. Really.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
 Grey Templar wrote: Bad Gencon. You really shouldn't be taking any stances on political issues that don't concern you.
So because you think it doesn't concern them(which you have no actual way of knowing), they're not allowed the right to refuse to do business in a state/city with a law that they don't agree with?
86211
Post by: Asterios
 timetowaste85 wrote:Saying "people discriminating against discriminating people" isn't actually adding anything to the convo. It's flame bait at best. Because then it leads to discriminating against those who are discriminating other discriminators, and the cycle just continues. Discrimination is bad. In all its forms. If a person discriminates, they should be called out for it. But the cycle always continues. Because we, as a species, can't just get along. It's depressing. Really.
that's why I say I think the law is stupid, but it is their right.
there is no clear cut answer to this problem, either way you look at it someone will be discriminated against, and me personally i'm all for the businesses have the right to refuse service, but with signs posted, since I would rather not go to a business that does not want my business.
514
Post by: Orlanth
That was in the UK.
 Desubot wrote:
a business has the right to refuse service. dont give out a reason, no problems.
its more ethical if a reason is given.
I think the bill should be amended to include something along the lines of:
"a person has the right to refuse service if providing service would involve in their opinion a conflict of interests with their lawfully held personal beliefs."
Lets take the analogy in practice, say a cafe that also bake to order.
So an unlawful belief (white supremacy) would not be an excuse to refuse service to a non white.
But a lawful belief (religious conviction) would be an excuse to refuse service to a homosexual.
...However under certain conditions.
It is not a conflict of interests to serve a homosexual a cake, that would be unfair discriminatory.
However the proprietor could refuse to allow the cafe to become a meeting place for homosexuals, on the grounds of non participation.
The proprietor could not refuse service to a homosexual who wants a cake.
The proprietor would be able to refuse service to a homosexual who wants a cake with pro gay slogans, on the grounds of non participation.
It would need tighter legal wording but I think you see the idea.
- The right should not be restricted to religious people.
- The right should not exclude the person, it should exclude the category which causes a conflict of interests. This conflict of interests should be explained legal and pre-established.
- Though individual cases are exempt, so you can ban someone who happens to be gay, but not for that reason of itself. This is important as too often a minority status is used as a beatstick against a citizen wishing to exercise their civil rights to refuse service to an individual who has made themselves unwelcome by their behaviour.
- The right should not exclude general service but may include non participation in propogating a group contrary to a belief system, and enables the person to deny a platform whether active of passively.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Bad Gencon. You really shouldn't be taking any stances on political issues that don't concern you.
So because you think it doesn't concern them(which you have no actual way of knowing), they're not allowed the right to refuse to do business in a state/city with a law that they don't agree with?
He said they shouldn't do it, not not be allowed to do it.
92153
Post by: KaptinBadrukk
I hope it does not happen.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Frazzled wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Bad Gencon. You really shouldn't be taking any stances on political issues that don't concern you.
So because you think it doesn't concern them(which you have no actual way of knowing), they're not allowed the right to refuse to do business in a state/city with a law that they don't agree with?
He said they shouldn't do it, not not be allowed to do it.
Then I'll rephrase the question: If you think it doesn't concern them(which we have no actual way of knowing), why shouldn't they refuse to do business with a state/city that has a law that they don't agree with? Moving the convention will hurt the city much more than it'll hurt GenCon.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Platuan4th wrote: Frazzled wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Bad Gencon. You really shouldn't be taking any stances on political issues that don't concern you.
So because you think it doesn't concern them(which you have no actual way of knowing), they're not allowed the right to refuse to do business in a state/city with a law that they don't agree with?
He said they shouldn't do it, not not be allowed to do it.
Then I'll rephrase the question: If you think it doesn't concern them(which we have no actual way of knowing), why shouldn't they refuse to do business with a state/city that has a law that they don't agree with?
The law was moved through the Indiana state legislature and signed by the Indiana Governor. The law exists because the elected representatives of the people of Indiana believe it's what the people want and passing it will improve their political careers. GenCon is outside the only feedback loop that matters to the state govt, the people of Indiana. GenCon can do business with whatever convention center it wants, anywhere it wants to be held, no one is arguing against that. The point that I believe is being argued is that the Governor of Indiana and the state legislature of Indiana isn't beholden to GenCon so GenCon's indignation isn't relevant to getting the law changed. GenCon doesn't need to be telling the people of Indiana how to govern their state.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
PhantomViper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.
I agree with you completely.
Now please point out to me where I've advocated that people should be discriminated against in any way because of their religion?
Denying business to anyone for any reason is a perfectly valid decision. Don't like the decision? Then don't like it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
How is a gaming convention involved again?
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
It brings money into Indiana. See, Frazzled, money is the force that makes society work. Think of money as the wind and we're all sailboats that it's blowing along. With enough money you can get blown just about anywhere. Indianapolis wants GenCon to blow their wad of money all over the city so that local business and the muncipal govt make money.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Prestor Jon wrote:GenCon doesn't need to be telling the people of Indiana how to govern their state.
Try reading the actual letter rather than sensational journalism: http://files.gencon.com/Gen_Con_Statement_Regarding_SB101.pdf Gencon isn't telling or forcing them to do anything, they're asking the governor to reconsider it and that if it passes, it will affect their decision on where to hold the convention. It's less threat and more request and informing how it may affect both the city and the business in the future.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Prestor Jon wrote:
It brings money into Indiana. See, Frazzled, money is the force that makes society work. Think of money as the wind and we're all sailboats that it's blowing along. With enough money you can get blown just about anywhere. Indianapolis wants GenCon to blow their wad of money all over the city so that local business and the muncipal govt make money.
Sorry let me clarify. How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?
With enough money you can get blown just about anywhere.
I see what you did there
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Honestly, if GenCon does not approve of the laws of the state, they are absolutely free to do business elsewhere. There is no law that says "GenCon can only exist in Indiana". the general sentiment in most GW threads when customers are unhappy is "vote with your wallet". That's what GenCon is doing: they're not bringing business to a place they disagree with. It's their right as an American group to do so.
In all honesty, it shouldn't be that big of an argument. I say "good on the owners/board of GenCon". They disagree with a political decision and are taking appropriate steps against it: wallet voting.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Platuan4th wrote:
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
They're a gaming convention. Unless they have a huge gay component I didn't know about this law will have zero effect on their bottom line.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
They're a gaming convention. Unless they have a huge gay component I didn't know about this law will have zero effect on their bottom line.
They DO have a huge openly gay component that attends.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Sigvatr wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.
I agree with you completely.
Now please point out to me where I've advocated that people should be discriminated against in any way because of their religion?
Denying business to anyone for any reason is a perfectly valid decision. Don't like the decision? Then don't like it.
In the US, maybe. I don't know enough about US laws to say if it is lawful or not.
In your country and mine? No, its not and its actually against the law.
And even if it was within the confines of the law, it would still be a bigoted decision to deny business to someone because of their sexual orientation, or their religion, or their race.
And I can't help but notice that your post doesn't answer my previous question so I'll just repeat it in case you've missed it the first time: please point out to me where I've advocated that people should be discriminated against in any way because of their religion?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Platuan4th wrote:
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
How?
Did anyone even know about it until the letter? Automatically Appended Next Post: Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
They're a gaming convention. Unless they have a huge gay component I didn't know about this law will have zero effect on their bottom line.
They DO have a huge openly gay component that attends.
See now here's some reasoning. thanks. Thats helpful.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Fine then, but honestly this law wouldn't effect them in any measurable amount.
This doesn't make it mandatory for businesses to discriminate, and the vast majority of businesses won't use it. And the businesses that will aren't ones gay people would try and use, except to be huge dicks and try and make unwanted political statements.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Frazzled wrote: Platuan4th wrote:
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
How?
Well, there's very well attended annual Gaymers GenCon get together.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:
Because it has the potential to affect the bottom line of GenCon LLC by being a deciding factor in people's decision to visit Indy and the convention.
They're a gaming convention. Unless they have a huge gay component I didn't know about this law will have zero effect on their bottom line.
They DO have a huge openly gay component that attends.
Is there also a huge component of vendors at GenCon and in Indianapolis that would refuse to do business with them? If the hotels will still rent them rooms, the restaurants will still serve them and the vendors in the convention will still sell to them then there isn't a problem. Indianapolis could send GenCon a letter listing all the business that aren't going to change the way they provide services if the law passes. Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
It brings money into Indiana. See, Frazzled, money is the force that makes society work. Think of money as the wind and we're all sailboats that it's blowing along. With enough money you can get blown just about anywhere. Indianapolis wants GenCon to blow their wad of money all over the city so that local business and the muncipal govt make money.
Sorry let me clarify. How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?
It isn't. I doubt storeholders in GenCon will restrict any minority group, the protesting organisers have said as much.
It is extremely unlikely that convention goers will be discriminated against outside, though its always useful to work up a good scare that they may well be.
However it is an opportunity for a gaming convention organiser to use his organisation to make a partisan protest on an issue he feels personally about. If it causes problems for the convention centre, local business, exhibitioners or convention goers then that is a small price to pay for the opportunity to wag a finger at the GOP.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Anyone that has EVER been to GenCon knows how accommodating Indy is to the convention. They're not going anywhere anytime soon.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yea they are. Thats the point of the letter.
Again, Gencon is free to go somewhere else. Indiana is free to pass its laws.
Come to Austin. We already have IkkyCon. GC will deign to bless you with her august presence.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Platuan4th wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
Which makes zero sense because none of their business associates would be stupid enough to use this law in any way related to this convention.
Gencon would see no effect as a result of this law. Nobody they're doing business with would stop doing business with them. So its really just political grandstanding poorly disguised as money concerns. And that is something they have no business doing.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
We'll just have to disagree on this point.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
Which makes zero sense because none of their business associates would be stupid enough to use this law in any way related to this convention.
Gencon would see no effect as a result of this law. Nobody they're doing business with would stop doing business with them. So its really just political grandstanding poorly disguised as money concerns. And that is something they have no business doing.
Except that their patrons could very well decide to boycott the convention because of it being held in a state with laws like these.
Also you claim that this law only provides more freedom to businesses so that they can hold to their beliefs, but you're trying to deny other businesses those same freedoms when their beliefs don't agree with yours.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Of course. Just like people with a different opinion can choose not to do commerce there.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
PhantomViper wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
Which makes zero sense because none of their business associates would be stupid enough to use this law in any way related to this convention.
Gencon would see no effect as a result of this law. Nobody they're doing business with would stop doing business with them. So its really just political grandstanding poorly disguised as money concerns. And that is something they have no business doing.
Except that their patrons could very well decide to boycott the convention because of it being held in a state with laws like these.
Also you claim that this law only provides more freedom to businesses so that they can hold to their beliefs, but you're trying to deny other businesses those same freedoms when their beliefs don't agree with yours.
1) sure, the gay people could decide to boycott the convention. But that would be childish and pointless since Gencon had nothing to do with that law.
2) what exactly are you referring to in that second point?
86211
Post by: Asterios
what it comes down to is GC has a deal with Indiana till 2020, so question is will the break the deal or not?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
Which makes zero sense because none of their business associates would be stupid enough to use this law in any way related to this convention.
Quick Question: How do you know that?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Dreadwinter wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
Which makes zero sense because none of their business associates would be stupid enough to use this law in any way related to this convention.
Quick Question: How do you know that?
Because Gencon brings in a lot of money and they're not going to be dealing with the mom and pop stores who will actually use this law. Anyone who knows anything about business will be able to reach the same conclusion. its a non-issue for Gencon and anyone who attends.
And anyone who boycotts gencon because of what Indiana politics are doing isn't someone I would personally want attending. That attitude is toxic for a convention atmosphere. We go to conventions to have a good time, not scrabble over politics.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Asterios wrote:what it comes down to is GC has a deal with Indiana till 2020, so question is will the break the deal or not?
The letter specifically mentions that: "Gencon and its attendees look forward to receiving the same Hoosier hospitality throughout the term of our contract." Suggesting that if they vote to move, it will be after the contract ends. As cincydooley said, they're not going anywhere soon.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Platuan4th wrote:
Of course. Just like people with a different opinion can choose not to do commerce there.
And there you go. We are in agreement. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Platuan4th wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Would GenCon still boycott Indiana on principle even if the convention itself wouldn't be negatively affected?
Again, please read the ACTUAL letter rather than articles about the letter. They aren't threatening to boycott anything on ANY PRINCIPLE, they simply state that the law and its potential financial impact on the convention will be a factor in deciding where to hold the convention.
Which makes zero sense because none of their business associates would be stupid enough to use this law in any way related to this convention.
Quick Question: How do you know that?
Because Gencon brings in a lot of money and they're not going to be dealing with the mom and pop stores who will actually use this law. Anyone who knows anything about business will be able to reach the same conclusion. its a non-issue for Gencon and anyone who attends.
This is true.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
I'm referring that apparently GenCon's beliefs include only doing business with people that defend the same principles as theirs, so its entirely their business to say that if Indiana strays from those principles then their business arrangement may come to an end.
I've just read the actual letter and they never mention that the legislation would impact GenCon negatively or not, only that if the legislation is passed then GenCon will take its business elsewhere.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
PhantomViper wrote:
I'm referring that apparently GenCon's beliefs include only doing business with people that defend the same principles as theirs, so its entirely their business to say that if Indiana strays from those principles then their business arrangement may come to an end.
I've just read the actual letter and they never mention that the legislation would impact GenCon negatively or not, only that if the legislation is passed then GenCon will take its business elsewhere.
And I never said they couldnt do otherwise. I'm just saying its badform, childish, and nonsensical.
And why does Gencon have principles related to this? I wouldn't want to go to a gaming convention that held political beliefs unrelated to gaming.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Grey Templar wrote:
1) sure, the gay people could decide to boycott the convention. But that would be childish and pointless since Gencon had nothing to do with that law.
I'm really not convinced there would be a noticeable impact in regards to $$, honestly. Although anything that makes the housing lottery easier is fine in my book 
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Grey Templar wrote:I wouldn't want to go to a gaming convention that held political beliefs unrelated to gaming.
Do you also not shop in stores that have political beliefs unrelated to selling you things? Or as Frazzled asked:
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Grey Templar wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
I'm referring that apparently GenCon's beliefs include only doing business with people that defend the same principles as theirs, so its entirely their business to say that if Indiana strays from those principles then their business arrangement may come to an end.
I've just read the actual letter and they never mention that the legislation would impact GenCon negatively or not, only that if the legislation is passed then GenCon will take its business elsewhere.
And I never said they couldnt do otherwise. I'm just saying its badform, childish, and nonsensical.
So for Joe McBiggot, business owner, to refuse service to "the gays" its FREEEEDOOOM!
But for GenCon to try and provide a welcome environment to all its attendees is "badform, childish, and nonsensical"?
Grey Templar wrote:
And why does Gencon have principles related to this? I wouldn't want to go to a gaming convention that held political beliefs unrelated to gaming.
Why do business owners have principles relating to what other people do in their private lives? Why are you defending them and condemning GenCon for apparently doing the exact same thing?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Frazzled wrote:
In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.
WHY?
Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship.
No, it's not "dictatorship". You could argue that it's fascism, but in that case so is taxation, and anything the state ever does. Welcome to anarchy!
For what it's worth, without someone (in this case the State) regulating the market to a certain extent (the extent of which is what we debate daily), the market collapses. If private businesses want to reap the rewards of having the state enforce contracts, protect property from theft and so on, they've gotta play by the rules, one of which I argue is that you've got to sell to everyone that's legal to sell to upon request. In essence, in accepting the social contract and recieving the boon of having the state protect you, you gain responsibilities as well, one of which is to not discriminate on arbitrary grounds.
If someone doesn't like it, they're free to push for a change in legislation, which is indeed what is happening.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote:
In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.
WHY?
Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship.
No, it's not "dictatorship". You could argue that it's fascism, but in that case so is taxation, and anything the state ever does. Welcome to anarchy!
For what it's worth, without someone (in this case the State) regulating the market to a certain extent (the extent of which is what we debate daily), the market collapses. If private businesses want to reap the rewards of having the state enforce contracts, protect property from theft and so on, they've gotta play by the rules, one of which I argue is that you've got to sell to everyone that's legal to sell to upon request. In essence, in accepting the social contract and recieving the boon of having the state protect you, you gain responsibilities as well, one of which is to not discriminate on arbitrary grounds.
If someone doesn't like it, they're free to push for a change in legislation, which is indeed what is happening.
Except of course, thats never been the case. free markets have run just fine without that government interference. More often government is the one limiting who you can sell to (Jim Crow laws being an excellent example).
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
PhantomViper wrote: Grey Templar wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
I'm referring that apparently GenCon's beliefs include only doing business with people that defend the same principles as theirs, so its entirely their business to say that if Indiana strays from those principles then their business arrangement may come to an end.
I've just read the actual letter and they never mention that the legislation would impact GenCon negatively or not, only that if the legislation is passed then GenCon will take its business elsewhere.
And I never said they couldnt do otherwise. I'm just saying its badform, childish, and nonsensical.
So for Joe McBiggot, business owner, to refuse service to "the gays" its FREEEEDOOOM!
But for GenCon to try and provide a welcome environment to all its attendees is "badform, childish, and nonsensical"?
Nothing has changed regarding the environment. Gencon provides the environment. They aren't using this law, so nothing happens.
Its also inappropriate to say someone who would use this law is a bigot.
They're blowing smoke over a nonexistent fire. Yes, its childish to make a fuss over nothing. They're not similar situations like you claim. They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
When you get down to brass tacks, they really are. Just because you think it doesn't/won't affect GenCon doesn't change the fact that both situations are businesses having a political view that's aside from what they actually do. The only thing that changes is the scope.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Frazzled wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Frazzled wrote:
In certain/most circumstances, yes. And vica versa.
WHY?
Whats wrong with a government NOT forcing you to serve someone you vehemently dislike? By what do you have to make someone else do that? Thats coercion. Thats dictatorship.
No, it's not "dictatorship". You could argue that it's fascism, but in that case so is taxation, and anything the state ever does. Welcome to anarchy!
For what it's worth, without someone (in this case the State) regulating the market to a certain extent (the extent of which is what we debate daily), the market collapses. If private businesses want to reap the rewards of having the state enforce contracts, protect property from theft and so on, they've gotta play by the rules, one of which I argue is that you've got to sell to everyone that's legal to sell to upon request. In essence, in accepting the social contract and recieving the boon of having the state protect you, you gain responsibilities as well, one of which is to not discriminate on arbitrary grounds.
If someone doesn't like it, they're free to push for a change in legislation, which is indeed what is happening.
Except of course, thats never been the case. free markets have run just fine without that government interference. More often government is the one limiting who you can sell to (Jim Crow laws being an excellent example).
There's no such thing as a "free market". Someone's always going to rig it in their favour.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Platuan4th wrote:
When you get down to brass tacks, they really are. Just because you think it doesn't/won't affect GenCon doesn't change the fact that both situations are businesses having a political view that's aside from what they actually do. The only thing that changes is the scope.
No they aren't.
One is people wanting to be free to express their views.
The other is people being pissed that others can express their views.
Sure, Gencon is free to hold the views they do and act on them. But I'm also free to point out their reasons are wrong, flawed, and childish.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Grey Templar wrote:
Nothing has changed regarding the environment. Gencon provides the environment. They aren't using this law, so nothing happens.
Off course things have changed, every time that a attendant left the convention grounds there would be a possibility that that person would be discriminated against.
Trying to ensure that that doesn't happen, or at least if it happened it would not be legal to do so is what GenCon is trying to do.
No, it really is not. If someone is discriminating against someone else based on their sexual preferences, then that is bigotry.
Grey Templar wrote:
They're blowing smoke over a nonexistent fire. Yes, its childish to make a fuss over nothing. They're not similar situations like you claim.
A business discriminates a person based on their sexual preferences -> you say that this is entirely justified for some reason.
A business tries to protect that person from that discrimination -> now that is just childish.
221
Post by: Frazzled
And both are free to contract elsewhere.
As noted, come to Austin instead. Our food is better, our drinks are less watered down, our women are prettier, and our wierdoes are weirder.
True story
So GC and her hooligans were going to some Con. One day they all went as zombies. Because parking was a situation the Wife parked a few blocks away. So five girls (and heavily armed mom) pile out of the van in zombie makeup right in front of a homeless guy. He sees them, FREAKS and RUNS AWAY babbling incoherently.
Flawless Victory!
You could come to Houston. We have a lesbian mayor so its not an issue. But its hot and muggy here and flat. Not Oklahoma flat, but pretty flat.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Grey Templar wrote: They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.
Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Grey Templar wrote:But I'm also free to point out their reasons are wrong, flawed, and childish.
Yes, you're free to say that, but that doesn't make it accurate, either.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
PhantomViper wrote: Grey Templar wrote: They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.
Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.
And last I checked that isn't illegal. But you might not be served in certain places for doing such a disgusting thing. You have freedom, other people have freedom, everyone wins.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
PhantomViper wrote: Grey Templar wrote: They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.
Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.
Well, they aren't really.
They only want to be able to determine who they serve in their own private business.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Disciples of Christ also threatens to cancel convention if bill is passed
The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has sent a letter to Gov. Mike Pence threatening to cancel its 2017 convention in Indianapolis if he signs controversial legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples.
"Our perspective is that hate and bigotry wrapped in religious freedom is still hate and bigotry," Todd Adams, the associate general minister and vice president of the Indianapolis-based denomination, told The Indianapolis Star.
Adams said the Disciples of Christ would instead seek a host city that is "hospitable and welcome to all of our attendees."
The letter stated the church is inclusive of different races, ethnicities, ages, genders and sexual orientations.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Refusing to decorate a cake is a long way from hate or bigotry.
There is the middle ground of disapproval.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Good for that church. Hopefully other places will take a stand as well.
Wait, isn't christianity supposed to condemn gamers/satan worshippers? Something is afoot. Grey Templar!! Yours is a holy quest. Thou must leave this thread and track down the cause of satanist gamers and the holy Christian church working together against this affront! Come back only when you have found proof as to why such mortal enemies wouldst stand together against such a foe!
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Just for clarity's sake I think it's important to remember that Chik-fil-A as a corporate entity has never expressed an opinion on gay marriage and has never descriminated against gays. The person who owns Chik-fil-A spent money as a private citizen as a donation to a religious foundation opposed to gay marriage. That's entirely different than Chik-fil-A the corporation acting in a political or descriminatory manner.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Not funny.
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word. Much how you don't stop loving your children if they do something bad, but your favor will be removed till they stop doing the bad things.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Prestor Jon wrote:
Just for clarity's sake I think it's important to remember that Chik-fil-A as a corporate entity has never expressed an opinion on gay marriage and has never descriminated against gays. The person who owns Chik-fil-A spent money as a private citizen as a donation to a religious foundation opposed to gay marriage. That's entirely different than Chik-fil-A the corporation acting in a political or descriminatory manner.
You can substitute any company name into Frazz's post, though, and his point remains the same.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Prestor Jon wrote:
Just for clarity's sake I think it's important to remember that Chik-fil-A as a corporate entity has never expressed an opinion on gay marriage and has never descriminated against gays. The person who owns Chik-fil-A spent money as a private citizen as a donation to a religious foundation opposed to gay marriage. That's entirely different than Chik-fil-A the corporation acting in a political or descriminatory manner.
Sorry thats what I meant.
Disciples of Christ sounds like a biker gang. The original holy rollers?
Come to Austin. We even tolerate Christian bikers at our annual biker rally. And our food really is better than your food. And unlike OKlahoma we're not flat. We have hills and ponds (that used to be a big lake but those yards aren't going to water themselves!)
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.
221
Post by: Frazzled
timetowaste85 wrote:Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too? Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.
Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.
93655
Post by: Buttery Commissar
I'm not meaning to trivialise anyone's life, but to me it isn't purely about "the gays"...
In my mind: Over fifty thousand people, that's more that live in some towns in my country - that is a huge community, and everyone in it deserves to be respected and cherished.
Yes at the bottom of it all, a convention is about money. But it's also grown to be far more than that. It's not even about a small financial loss from "the gays" boycotting the event.
If Gen Con want to stand up and warn a governor, want to say that potentially ostracising any part of the community they have nurtured is not okay, it's a brave decision but absolutely their place to do so.
"We will look after our own." put in black and white.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Grey Templar wrote:While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.
Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity. Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Frazzled wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.
Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.
Reply to Grey Templar. He talked about Christians walking away from the bible. I was responding to that.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Frazzled wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.
Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.
He's referring to Grey Templar without quoting him.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Grey Templar wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Grey Templar wrote: They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.
Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.
And last I checked that isn't illegal. But you might not be served in certain places for doing such a disgusting thing. You have freedom, other people have freedom, everyone wins.
So it's OK for establishments to use tax-funded benefits such as police, roads, fire brigades, courts and so on, but they're allowed to tell the people contributing to those things to get lost? If I were more right-wing, I might be tempted to call that theft.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Actually it is.
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form.
And the idea that homosexuality is "sin" is absolutely ridiculous. There's clearly no harm done by it, and the only reason for calling it "sin" is mindless obedience of a hypothetical god. If this is what Christianity demands then Christianity is a morally appalling concept and the sooner it dies the better.
Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible.
Or they've just continued the grand tradition of interpreting the bible differently. But I guess you'll continue the matching tradition of declaring anyone who interprets the bible differently to be "not true Christians". Perhaps we should have another holy war to settle this?
But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.
Selling products to people does not mean "accepting the sin". If you don't want to compromise your (entirely inappropriate and offensive) beliefs then find a job where that isn't one of your duties.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote:While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.
Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.
Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.
Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth. Automatically Appended Next Post: timetowaste85 wrote: Frazzled wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Bible was written by man, not by God. Who are you to say what He commanded, and what man added in because he felt like it. Unless you were there. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably weren't. The bible has also had sections approving of slavery and stoning people who were unfaithful. Should we bring those back too?
Yes, you're entitled to your opinion. But when your head is so far up your ass that you're wearing yourself as a hat, expect to be mocked.
Who are you referring to? I think you want the crazy Californian thread three doors down.
Reply to Grey Templar. He talked about Christians walking away from the bible. I was responding to that.
OK.
An Episcopal and Presbeterian would say you need to revisit your scriptures if you think they have fallen from the Word. Lutherans would just pull a blade and cut you. You don't mess with Lutherans. They're Christianity's wise guys.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Frazzled wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote:While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.
Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.
Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.
Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.
My wife's actually Episcopalian.
My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.
68355
Post by: easysauce
Grey Templar wrote:Not funny.
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word. Much how you don't stop loving your children if they do something bad, but your favor will be removed till they stop doing the bad things.
I agree grey, its not funny, and it shows how hypocritical people can be in that bashing gays is not ok, but bashing Christians is just fine.
I want to preface the 2nd bit where I disagree, by saying I 100% respect your opinion, and you have every right to consider any act to be moral/immoral within your own personal belief system.
That christians are not to condone sin either, thats a fairly common teaching, whats not common is what particular sins are not to be condoned.
The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish, and all sin is equal before the lord
There is also the whole original sin thing, can we ever be "ok" in the eyes of a religion where were are all sinners, no matter what?
After all, should not he who is without sin cast the first stone?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
 easysauce wrote:The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.
Both of those are also from Leviticus, which were originally the laws as laid down by the priestly tribe and not meant to be God's law, but the laws of the Tribes of Israel. That also doesn't get into the whole debate about whether the New Testament and Jesus' teachings are meant to replace the Torah, not expand on it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
easysauce wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Not funny.
While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word. Much how you don't stop loving your children if they do something bad, but your favor will be removed till they stop doing the bad things.
I agree grey, its not funny, and it shows how hypocritical people can be in that bashing gays is not ok, but bashing Christians is just fine.
I want to preface the 2nd bit where I disagree, by saying I 100% respect your opinion, and you have every right to consider any act to be moral/immoral within your own personal belief system.
That christians are not to condone sin either, thats a fairly common teaching, whats not common is what particular sins are not to be condoned.
The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish, and all sin is equal before the lord
There is also the whole original sin thing, can we ever be "ok" in the eyes of a religion where were are all sinners, no matter what?
After all, should not he who is without sin cast the first stone?
Actually that was wacked out when they decided to expand production and said gentiles could eat what they want and didn't have to...cut off...their former lives.
Nothing in the Bible about eating Tex Mex though so I'm good. Automatically Appended Next Post:
My wife's actually Episcopalian.
My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.
My at best agnostic boy is falling in love with a Catholic Aggie. Who says god doesn't have a sense of humor!
(Am I the only one who envisions god as Mel Brooks?)
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
easysauce wrote:
The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.
That's a point; where does lesbianism fit in? That's not laying with a man as you would a woman.
Similarly, due to simple facts of biology, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is going to be rather difficult.
91362
Post by: DCannon4Life
Frazzled wrote:Lutherans would just pull a blade and cut you. You don't mess with Lutherans. They're Christianity's wise guys.
For the sake of accuracy (satirical accuracy, but still): The ELA (Evangelical Lutherans) are generally very accepting and 'liberal'. The Missouri Synod is...perfectly at home down south. It's the WELS (Wisconsin) Lutherans that will definitely, DEFINITELY mess you up real good, concrete shoes and all.
/wink
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Platuan4th wrote: Frazzled wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote:While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.
Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity.
Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.
Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care.
What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.
My wife's actually Episcopalian.
My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.
Ha, Unitarian Universalist is the only way to go!
Now to see if anyone know what it is....
Automatically Appended Next Post: And you know, the "laying with a man" thing might not even be talking about The Gayness. It heard on the radio from one priest (or possibly rabbi, I can't remember) and historian that it's actually talking about male one male rape to show dominance. If you know you bible GreyTemplar (and you should by how you are talking about it) you will remeber the onse story who gave his dauters to a mod to be rped instead of his male guest. The mob wasn't gay, they were exerting dominance. A bit like prison rape.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
 Co'tor Shas wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Frazzled wrote: Platuan4th wrote: Grey Templar wrote:While Christians are supposed to show love, we shouldn't condone sin in any form. Churches who support homosexuality have abandoned the Bible. You can love them and still disapprove of the sin. But accepting the sin as OK goes against the word.
Beliefs such as this are why I can no longer choose to believe in Christianity. Seriously, other Christians destroyed my faith.
Be an Episcopal. As long as you bring the wine we don't care. What do you find when you see four Episcopalians? A fifth.
My wife's actually Episcopalian. My current beliefs are complicated to get into, but I'll just state that I can no longer personally accept or believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christ or that he's the son of what people refer to as God, though I recognize his place in history and DO believe that the historical Jesus existed.
Ha, Unitarian Universalist is the only way to go! Now to see if anyone know what it is....
I considered it, but I'm more of a Non-Denominational Polytheistic Discordian. Which means I'm the Pope.
68355
Post by: easysauce
AlmightyWalrus wrote: easysauce wrote:
The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.
That's a point; where does lesbianism fit in? That's not laying with a man as you would a woman.
Similarly, due to simple facts of biology, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is going to be rather difficult.
I think there is a joke in there with regards to lesbians and eating the shell fish.
at least, all the pieces are there.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
AlmightyWalrus wrote: easysauce wrote:
The problem is that according to the bible, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is a sin on par with eating shell fish.
That's a point; where does lesbianism fit in? That's not laying with a man as you would a woman.
Similarly, due to simple facts of biology, "laying with a man as you would a woman" is going to be rather difficult.
Unless the man is trapped in a woman's body, and it was a comment on transgenders!
666
Post by: Necros
Dear GenCon,
Please leave Indy and move to Philly.
Thanks in advance.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
This is going to sound crazy, but IMO it really isn't that far a reach, as a Christian, to not only accept homosexuality, but embrace it as one of God's works. If you'll bear with me.
God is infallible.
Homosexuality is a natural mutation.
God is infallible, so he intended for homosexuality to exist.
Personally, that's how I reconcile it.
But then again I'm pretty sure referring to it as a mutation makes me a bigot. So it is what it is.
I still think people should be able to service whomever they want in their own private businesses, and face the repercussions if they're exclusionary. Abercombie & Fitch doesn't make clothing for fat people. They lose money from fat people. That's their choice.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Grey Templar wrote: They're making a fuss because other people want to exercise their freedoms, not because anyone is being restricted.
Actually the businesses that you are defending are also making a fuss because other people wan't to exercise their freedoms, namely the freedom to stick their private parts wherever they damn well please.
And last I checked that isn't illegal. But you might not be served in certain places for doing such a disgusting thing. You have freedom, other people have freedom, everyone wins.
So it's OK for establishments to use tax-funded benefits such as police, roads, fire brigades, courts and so on, but they're allowed to tell the people contributing to those things to get lost? If I were more right-wing, I might be tempted to call that theft.
It's is absolutely ok for private business and citizens to take full advantage of tax funded services while still adhering to their personal beliefs. The state is going to collect taxes from you regardless of your personal beliefs and the state will imprison you if you fail to provide the state wtih the taxes they demand. That the state uses it's monopoly on force to enforce the tax code does not in any way prohibit citizens from engaging in willfull private business transactions with whomever they choose or refusing to engage in willfull private business transactions with anyone they choose.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
cincydooley wrote:
This is going to sound crazy, but IMO it really isn't that far a reach, as a Christian, to not only accept homosexuality, but embrace it as one of God's works. If you'll bear with me.
God is infallible.
Homosexuality is a natural mutation.
God is infallible, so he intended for homosexuality to exist.
Personally, that's how I reconcile it.
That's actually perfect. Why should any god hate love?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Necros wrote:Dear GenCon,
Please leave Indy and move to Philly.
Thanks in advance.
Push off Yankee! Texas called dibs first.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I don't think it has anything to do with love.
It has everything to do with where you want to stick your personal bits.
I think the two are unrelated, personally.
I love my dog. I don't want to feth it.
18698
Post by: kronk
Dear GenCon. Stay in Indy. St. Elmos is pretty cool.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
All sins are washed away with the blood of Christ, therefore Jesus forgives bestiality, right?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Asterios wrote:PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
Vegas? San Diego?
Either of those cities could handle it, no problem.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
18698
Post by: kronk
 JohnHwangDD wrote:Asterios wrote:PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
Vegas? San Diego?
Either of those cities could handle it, no problem.
Yeah. Vegas could handle it.
But stay in Indy!
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Go to Albany! They have...... corruption?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 jasper76 wrote:Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
Clarify. If you want culture shock- El Paso. I hope everyone knows Spanish. I know - Ferguson Missouri. hahahahaha
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
jasper76 wrote:Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
Didn't Baltmore used to hold big annual gaming conventions?
Like, say, the Games Workshop Games Day and Grand Tournament?
Wasn't that in Bal'more, hon?
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Not to mention the 30,000 or so people who show up every August for the Otakon.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Alex C wrote:
All sins are washed away with the blood of Christ, therefore Jesus forgives bestiality, right?
According to our Baptismal class teacher, who assured us that even if my infant daughter murdered people, yes, that's the case
Still doesn't make me want to feth my dog Automatically Appended Next Post: Additionally, I'm getting the impression that a large swathe of people recommending locations haven't actually been to GenCon. Would that be correct?
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
It's because we want to go, but it's damn far away. I live in mid-upstate NY, so I can go down to NYC for cons, but I hate NYC.
123
Post by: Alpharius
GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING TIME!
RULE #1 is MANDATORY!
PLEASE find a way to express yourselves without insulting someone else.
Thanks!
12313
Post by: Ouze
I support Gencon's right to leave Indiana because they didn't like how they legislated just as I supported Magpul's right to leave Colorado because they didn't like how they legislated.
As Grey Templar said (about Magpul);
Grey Templar wrote:Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.
They shall reap what they have sown, and it will be a bitter cup indeed.
51859
Post by: Squidmanlolz
Co'tor Shas wrote:It's because we want to go, but it's damn far away. I live in mid-upstate NY, so I can go down to NYC for cons, but I hate NYC.
We all hate NYC, but a con's a con.
I'd be ecstatic if Gencon came to the Javit's Center
80999
Post by: jasper76
JohnHwangDD wrote: jasper76 wrote:Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
Didn't Baltmore used to hold big annual gaming conventions?
Like, say, the Games Workshop Games Day and Grand Tournament?
Wasn't that in Bal'more, hon?
No idea...I moved out of there long before I became interested in table-top gaming, so it was never on my radar. I'd love to see it though! The Guild meets the Wire But in reality, I assume that such convention attendees would stay ithin the safe confines of the Harbor area.
86211
Post by: Asterios
JohnHwangDD wrote:Asterios wrote:PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
Vegas? San Diego?
Either of those cities could handle it, no problem.
either there or San Francisco or maybe Sacramento, would love to see them here in Stockton, but not a cold chance in hell of that happening
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I'll be honest. Downtown Indianapolis is perfect for GenCon. I can't see it moving to anywhere but a place like Austin.
I think there's a bigger chance Frazzled moves to California than there is of GenCon moving to California.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ouze wrote:I support Gencon's right to leave Indiana because they didn't like how they legislated just as I supported Magpul's right to leave Colorado because they didn't like how they legislated.
As Grey Templar said (about Magpul);
Grey Templar wrote:Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.
They shall reap what they have sown, and it will be a bitter cup indeed.
Thats free enterprise.
Come to Brenham. We have an ice cream company and give out free ice cream with every tour. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:I'll be honest. Downtown Indianapolis is perfect for GenCon. I can't see it moving to anywhere but a place like Austin.
I think there's a bigger chance Frazzled moves to California than there is of GenCon moving to California.
Die first. LA tried to kill me enough thank you.
Whats Indianapolis like?
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Asterios wrote: JohnHwangDD wrote:Asterios wrote:PS: I agree with GC's stance, but curious where they will move the con too ?
Vegas? San Diego?
Either of those cities could handle it, no problem.
either there or San Francisco or maybe Sacramento, would love to see them here in Stockton, but not a cold chance in hell of that happening
San Francisco would price out too many attendees. Sacramento is just a terrible suggestion and you should feel bad. Might as well suggest Bakersfield if you're going to be that guy. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:
I think there's a bigger chance Frazzled moves to California than there is of GenCon moving to California.
Why is that?
80999
Post by: jasper76
cincydooley wrote:I'll be honest. Downtown Indianapolis is perfect for GenCon. I can't see it moving to anywhere but a place like Austin.
DC would actually be a nice place for something like this.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Most of California is expensive to fly to, and expensive to con at. LA never struck me as a gamer city. San Fran is off the charts money wise.
San Diego is nice, but the harbor is too pretty. No one would go to the con.
Vegas-ok I guess but If I were going to Vegas it wouldn't be for a gaming convention.
Chicago, Dallas are excellent flight locations. Have you considered New Rochelle? Any place good enough for the Tick is good enough for America.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Clean, safe downtown area with tons of restaurants (7 steakhouses, by my counting) with everything within a 5 block radius from the convention center.
As a midwest city, everything is affordable.
The city embraces and caters to GenCon 100%. One of the local brewpubs does a whole Privateer Press schtick. The strip clubs have GenCon events. The bars have GenCon dance parties.
So in summation... Clean. Safe. Affordable.
Here's an article that does a pretty job explaining it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryolmsted/2012/02/06/super-bowl-xlvis-real-winner-indianapolis/
Simply put, there's a reason Indy hosts so many big events.
12313
Post by: Ouze
You had me at strip clubs and steakhouses.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
It was so nice to be local when GenCon was in Wisconsin, but yeah, the difference in how the surrounding city 'feels' in regards to the con, Indianapolis is infinitly better.
Grey Templar wrote:Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.
They shall reap what they have sown, and it will be a bitter cup indeed.
That is very much the truth. Last I heard, GenCon generated about $50 million in revenue as a whole for Indianopolis last year, but if Indiana decides that clinging to their bigotry is worth more to them than that... that's the bitter cup they're choosing to drink from.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yea he posted something after that but I quit reading. Austin has steakhouses. It also has about 387 bars on three streets downtown. We have our own Mardi Gras.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
jasper76 wrote: JohnHwangDD wrote: jasper76 wrote:Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
Didn't Baltmore used to hold big annual gaming conventions?
Like, say, the Games Workshop Games Day and Grand Tournament?
Wasn't that in Bal'more, hon?
No idea...I moved out of there long before I became interested in table-top gaming, so it was never on my radar. I'd love to see it though! The Guild meets the Wire But in reality, I assume that such convention attendees would stay ithin the safe confines of the Harbor area.
Dude, even when I was local (NoVa), I wouldn't venture much outside the Inner Harbor.
Except for Haussners. That was some damn fine Essen und Trinken. Pity that they're gone now.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Considering the screaming fit a lot of self-proclaimed 'christians' have about the 'war' on their faith and how discriminated against they are...
You'd have thought they'd have a more tolerant attitude, but apparently actually following what Christ taught isn't as important as selectively following bits of (but directly ignoring or flouting other bits of) Leviticus.
Now, that's 'so called' Christians, so if you're throwing a fit because I've said that, you're placing yourself in that category, not actual Christian, but one who selectively picks and chooses which parts of the bible are set in stone rules and which parts are just too vague to actually work out and should be widely ignored in your day to day life.
I was always partial to James 4:12 myself...
now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to enjoy a scallop and shrimp Thai curry. Might try the pork satay starter. What a good thing it is I'm a pagan...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
cincydooley wrote:
This is going to sound crazy, but IMO it really isn't that far a reach, as a Christian, to not only accept homosexuality, but embrace it as one of God's works. If you'll bear with me.
God is infallible.
Homosexuality is a natural mutation.
God is infallible, so he intended for homosexuality to exist.
Personally, that's how I reconcile it.
But then again I'm pretty sure referring to it as a mutation makes me a bigot. So it is what it is.
I still think people should be able to service whomever they want in their own private businesses, and face the repercussions if they're exclusionary. Abercombie & Fitch doesn't make clothing for fat people. They lose money from fat people. That's their choice.
Afraid that's not how it works. Nature isn't in the same state it was when it was created. It is fallen and corrupted, so even if there is a genetic predisposition towards being gay(and the supposed evidence is quite shakey for that) it isn't evidence god is OK with being gay. Especially since the bible explicitly says its wrong, all forms of it. Be it men with men or women with women.
12313
Post by: Ouze
God hates shrimp.
80999
Post by: jasper76
 MeanGreenStompa wrote:Considering the screaming fit a lot of self-proclaimed 'christians' have about the 'war' on their faith and how discriminated against they are...
You'd have thought they'd have a more tolerant attitude, but apparently actually following what Christ taught isn't as important as selectively following bits of (but directly ignoring or flouting other bits of) Leviticus.
Now, that's 'so called' Christians, so if you're throwing a fit because I've said that, you're placing yourself in that category, not actual Christian, but one who selectively picks and chooses which parts of the bible are set in stone rules and which parts are just too vague to actually work out and should be widely ignored in your day to day life.
To be fair, all Christians do this. All Chrsitians have to do this, although some have convinced themselves that they've landed on the "true" interpretation of the Bible, the simple fact is the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is choc-ful-o very nasty things, most of which have already been jettisoned by the majority of Christians. It just so happens that, generally speaking, tolerance of homosexuality hasn't been successfully integrated into the Christian worldview for many Christians.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Grey Templar wrote:Afraid that's not how it works. Nature isn't in the same state it was when it was created. It is fallen and corrupted, so even if there is a genetic predisposition towards being gay(and the supposed evidence is quite shakey for that) it isn't evidence god is OK with being gay. Especially since the bible explicitly says its wrong, all forms of it. Be it men with men or women with women.
And people actually wonder why people are anti-religion.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
jasper76 wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:Considering the screaming fit a lot of self-proclaimed 'christians' have about the 'war' on their faith and how discriminated against they are...
You'd have thought they'd have a more tolerant attitude, but apparently actually following what Christ taught isn't as important as selectively following bits of (but directly ignoring or flouting other bits of) Leviticus.
Now, that's 'so called' Christians, so if you're throwing a fit because I've said that, you're placing yourself in that category, not actual Christian, but one who selectively picks and chooses which parts of the bible are set in stone rules and which parts are just too vague to actually work out and should be widely ignored in your day to day life.
To be fair, all Christians do this. All Chrsitians have to do this, although some have convinced themselves that they've landed on the "true" interpretation of the Bible,
CAse in point, Grey Templar's entry a couple posts up.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Grey Templar wrote:Afraid that's not how it works. Nature isn't in the same state it was when it was created. It is fallen and corrupted, so even if there is a genetic predisposition towards being gay(and the supposed evidence is quite shakey for that) it isn't evidence god is OK with being gay. Especially since the bible explicitly says its wrong, all forms of it. Be it men with men or women with women.
The Bible also says mixing fabrics is an abomination. Jesus never gave anyone a pass on this rule. Go check your shirt tags!
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I could find explanations of those but frankly you aren't worth my time.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Fair enough. I'd hate for you to waste your precious time on someone as worthless as myself
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
This is not fun for me, so I'm begging off. I still hope GenCon moves closer to SoCal.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Actually a Christian who quotes and follows the Torah and OT are basically saying Jesus was not the son of God. Since him dying on the cross absolved us of our sins and thus fulfilling the Torah.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I'm gonna have to play this card the next time someone calls me on one of my weak arguments.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Hey, GreyTemplar, have you ever talked backed to or cursed at your parents?
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Hahaha. That's a GREAT argument, Grey!
Mods, I think you can officially kill the thread. I don't think anything worse can get posted now.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
IIRC, the bible has a thing or two to say about people who are religious when it suits them, but abandon it the moment it becomes the least bit inconvenient.
If you're going to stand on the corner and cry out your faith for all to see and hear, you should be prepared for people to stop and point out the rather gaping holes in what you're trying to proclaim..
46277
Post by: squidhills
jasper76 wrote:Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
Oh heck, no. Baltimore can barely handle the 36,000 it gets from Otacon every year. 50,000 con goers would be too much. There isn't enough parking in the whole city for that many people. And have you tried to get something to eat when Otacon is in town? Ever since the Harbor Place food court got gutted (its a boring shadow of its former glory) the lines at restaraunts are almost as long as the line to get into Otacon itself.
I don't know if DC can handle the 50,000 people (never been to the convention center there) but I do know that their metro system (despite being horrible at the best of times) will help reduce the need for parking for con attendees. So DC has that over Baltimore, at least.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Grey Templar wrote:
Afraid that's not how it works. Nature isn't in the same state it was when it was created. It is fallen and corrupted, so even if there is a genetic predisposition towards being gay(and the supposed evidence is quite shakey for that) it isn't evidence god is OK with being gay. Especially since the bible explicitly says its wrong, all forms of it. Be it men with men or women with women.
You're allowed to interpret it that way. I'm not naive enough to think everything transcribed over 3000 years is in it's original form, so I choose not to.
There's literally zero concrete evidence either way, and if I'm "allowed" to believe that evolution is a real thing per Canon, then I'm pretty comfortable making the pretty short leap from evolution to homosexuality as a mutation of evolution.
That's on top of the fact that it's absolutely none of my business who you're fething in the confines of your private home.
I know it makes me a "bad" Catholic, but if my God has trouble reconciling that with me, I'll find out when I'm dead.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
...There isn't a jpeg of Wonka big enough for this on the entire internet...
42144
Post by: cincydooley
But seriously. Downtown Indy rocks.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
You say this like it's fact. It isn't.
It is fallen and corrupted, so even if there is a genetic predisposition towards being gay(and the supposed evidence is quite shakey for that) it isn't evidence god is OK with being gay.
Sure it is. God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. God created the world (according to Christian mythology) in such a way that it would "fall" into its current state instead of into some hypothetical alternate state in which homosexuality doesn't exist. If god isn't ok with being gay then god is a sadistic monster who creates gay people and then punishes them for being gay.
Especially since the bible explicitly says its wrong, all forms of it. Be it men with men or women with women.
The bible also says a lot of things that most Christians ignore (or explain away) to make their religion match their existing moral beliefs. Do you have an argument for homosexuality being a sin that isn't just "because god said so"?
80999
Post by: jasper76
squidhills wrote: jasper76 wrote:Come to Baltimore! The culture clash would be hilarious to behold.
Oh heck, no. Baltimore can barely handle the 36,000 it gets from Otacon every year. 50,000 con goers would be too much. There isn't enough parking in the whole city for that many people. And have you tried to get something to eat when Otacon is in town? Ever since the Harbor Place food court got gutted (its a boring shadow of its former glory) the lines at restaraunts are almost as long as the line to get into Otacon itself.
I don't know if DC can handle the 50,000 people (never been to the convention center there) but I do know that their metro system (despite being horrible at the best of times) will help reduce the need for parking for con attendees. So DC has that over Baltimore, at least.
DC gets about 700,000 people each 4th of July, but the Verizon Center is probably the biggest venue, and it has a capacity of only ~18K as far as google says. I've never been to a big convention like this, so I don't even know if they're like held in one building, multiple buildings, outdoors, all of the above, or what.
P.S. I rather like the DC Metro system. Not during rush hour, and I don't work in DC so I don't take it anywhere near regularly or anything,but its nice to have around for travel into DC, and it gets you virtually anywhere in the city you'd want to go with no need for a car or cabs.
18698
Post by: kronk
Friendly people, good food. The local yocals gawk a bit at the weirdos at the Con, but understand how much $$$ they pump into the local restaurants and hotels. Many times the hotel capacity of Milwaukee, parking isn't wonderful, but it's there if you stay at a hotel. A large mall near the convention hall. Plenty of restaurants from $ to $$$$. I like it. To Frazz: St. Elmo's Steakhouse is as good as any steak I've had in Texas. Excluding my own, of course.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Of course you can find explanations, because virtually everyone has moral ideas from outside the bible and agrees that petty rules about fabric contents are not relevant in modern society. So they interpret the bible in a way that aligns with their morality and emphasize the passages which can be interpreted as "these laws no longer apply". Anti-gay people, on the other hand, emphasize the passages which can be interpreted as "these laws still apply" to support their existing anti-gay opinions. The fact that most Christians have carefully constructed an interpretation of the bible that suits their moral beliefs does not negate the argument that they're being selective about which laws to apply.
12313
Post by: Ouze
cincydooley wrote: I'm pretty comfortable making the pretty short leap from evolution to homosexuality as a mutation of evolution.
As mutations go, there are probably more useful ones, especially when fighting the Juggernaut or Magneto.
80999
Post by: jasper76
<deleted>
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Hey, if being gay makes you as awesome as him, I'm game. Now hand me that plutonium. Edit: seriously, 2 seconds!
12313
Post by: Ouze
I've loved George Takei even since the Tim Hardaway thing.
81364
Post by: WrentheFaceless
This thread both made me give up then reconfirm my faith in humanity within a few pages
Gencon should move to SoCal, I need more conventions to go to around here
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Ouze wrote: cincydooley wrote: I'm pretty comfortable making the pretty short leap from evolution to homosexuality as a mutation of evolution.
As mutations go, there are probably more useful ones, especially when fighting the Juggernaut or Magneto.
Thank you.... thank you for that. I think it at least partially redeemed this thread from the extreme level of derp it had achieved.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Grey Templar wrote:
Because Gencon brings in a lot of money and they're not going to be dealing with the mom and pop stores who will actually use this law. Anyone who knows anything about business will be able to reach the same conclusion. its a non-issue for Gencon and anyone who attends.
And anyone who boycotts gencon because of what Indiana politics are doing isn't someone I would personally want attending. That attitude is toxic for a convention atmosphere. We go to conventions to have a good time, not scrabble over politics.
This.
I believe the letter and possible pull out is just a move by some of the organisers to stick a knife in politically, as the games industry isn't really big enough to do that normally its a tool for the personal politics of the GenCon organisers. It has nothing to do with protecting attendees.
However it has hit mainstream press attention and thus given GenCon some valuable publicity. Gaming is itself becoming less fringe but not mainstream enough that enough people have heard of it.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
kronk wrote:
Friendly people, good food. The local yocals gawk a bit at the weirdos at the Con, but understand how much $$$ they pump into the local restaurants and hotels.
Many times the hotel capacity of Milwaukee, parking isn't wonderful, but it's there if you stay at a hotel. A large mall near the convention hall. Plenty of restaurants from $ to $$$$.
I like it.
To Frazz: St. Elmo's Steakhouse is as good as any steak I've had in Texas. Excluding my own, of course.
The NRA also host there conferences there quite a bit, so location aside Indy must be doing something right.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Orlanth wrote: Grey Templar wrote:
Because Gencon brings in a lot of money and they're not going to be dealing with the mom and pop stores who will actually use this law. Anyone who knows anything about business will be able to reach the same conclusion. its a non-issue for Gencon and anyone who attends.
And anyone who boycotts gencon because of what Indiana politics are doing isn't someone I would personally want attending. That attitude is toxic for a convention atmosphere. We go to conventions to have a good time, not scrabble over politics.
This.
I believe the letter and possible pull out is just a move by some of the organisers to stick a knife in politically, as the games industry isn't really big enough to do that normally its a tool for the personal politics of the GenCon organisers. It has nothing to do with protecting attendees.
This is the only thing that needs to be said in respose to that utter nonsense.
Grey Templar wrote:Its going to punish the economy of the states that drove them out.
They shall reap what they have sown, and it will be a bitter cup indeed.
80999
Post by: jasper76
If I was a big event organizer, I wouldn't want to hold an event in an area where businesses could legally refuse my clients service, either. Whether it be directly at the event or around it. In fact, I wouldn't want even a whiff of \ that kind of controversy or the potential for related shenanigans.
67730
Post by: stanman
I prefer my gaming to be free of politics, if gencon wants to start making moral and politcal endorsements then I'll chose not to attend.
Everyone deserves to be treated equal IMO, but I don't think that the owners of gencon should be stepping into the political arena and using the convention as leverage.
19370
Post by: daedalus
 stanman wrote:I prefer my gaming to be free of politics, if gencon wants to start making moral and politcal endorsements then I'll chose not to attend.
Everyone deserves to be treated equal IMO, but I don't think that the owners of gencon should be stepping into the political arena and using the convention as leverage.
Normally I agree with you, but (and maybe I'm stereotyping here a little) I think this affects enough of their demographic to potentially be worth them getting involved in for the sake of the moneys.
I go to drink and play games with people, and check out badass costumes. Long as they keep those politics out of what goes on at the con itself, I don't care one way or the other.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
 daedalus wrote: I think this affects enough of their demographic to potentially be worth them getting involved in for the sake of the moneys.
Dingdingding.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Pence to sign religious freedom bill Thursday in private ceremony
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (March 25, 2015)– Indiana Governor Mike Pence will sign Indiana’s controversial religious freedom restoration bill, SB 101, in a private ceremony Thursday. This comes after Mayor Greg Ballard spoke out against the bill Wednesday.
“I don’t believe this legislation truly represents our state or our capital city,” Ballard said.
For those who don't know, which I would guess are most since you don't live here, the mayor is a Republican.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
daedalus wrote: stanman wrote:I prefer my gaming to be free of politics, if gencon wants to start making moral and politcal endorsements then I'll chose not to attend.
Everyone deserves to be treated equal IMO, but I don't think that the owners of gencon should be stepping into the political arena and using the convention as leverage.
Normally I agree with you, but (and maybe I'm stereotyping here a little) I think this affects enough of their demographic to potentially be worth them getting involved in for the sake of the moneys.
http://www.tabletopgaymers.org/conventions/gencon/gencon2014/
320
Post by: Platuan4th
 Bookwrack wrote: daedalus wrote: stanman wrote:I prefer my gaming to be free of politics, if gencon wants to start making moral and politcal endorsements then I'll chose not to attend.
Everyone deserves to be treated equal IMO, but I don't think that the owners of gencon should be stepping into the political arena and using the convention as leverage.
Normally I agree with you, but (and maybe I'm stereotyping here a little) I think this affects enough of their demographic to potentially be worth them getting involved in for the sake of the moneys.
http://www.tabletopgaymers.org/conventions/gencon/gencon2014/
They've been discussed earlier, actually.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
Post 2015/03/25 19:30:45 Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
Pence to sign religious freedom bill Thursday in private ceremony
Oh well, it'll give the whiny losers something to cry over and manufacture outrage for the election ads when 'activist judges' kick it to the curb.
Mmm, sweet tears of impotent outrage.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Bookwrack wrote:Oh well, it'll give the whiny losers something to cry over and manufacture outrage for the election ads when 'activist judges' kick it to the curb.
Mmm, sweet tears of impotent outrage.
You did, however, provide the link, which I failed to do.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Bookwrack wrote: daedalus wrote: stanman wrote:I prefer my gaming to be free of politics, if gencon wants to start making moral and politcal endorsements then I'll chose not to attend.
Everyone deserves to be treated equal IMO, but I don't think that the owners of gencon should be stepping into the political arena and using the convention as leverage.
Normally I agree with you, but (and maybe I'm stereotyping here a little) I think this affects enough of their demographic to potentially be worth them getting involved in for the sake of the moneys.
http://www.tabletopgaymers.org/conventions/gencon/gencon2014/
Okay, but that's a group there, not the organization. There's anime groups there too. They're kind of annoying, but I don't let them get in the way of my fun either. I look at it the same way as I'd look at, say, that blurb in the D&D 5th book that goes on about how you should think about how your character doesn't have to pander to established gender stereotypes: That is, roll my eyes and get on with life, and maybe troll my friends with it next time we play. Everyone hates me a little more, life goes on.
Actually, I know people the Gaymer ribbon would make super uncomfortable. As the single guy of the group of us that go every year, I might have to pick one up and make creepy advances on some of my friends. Might get some free drinks at the bars from some very nice guys, I'm sure. Still not an issue: Opportunity!
Wake me up when they hang rainbow flags and have mandatory pride parades through the halls.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
daedalus wrote: Bookwrack wrote: daedalus wrote: stanman wrote:I prefer my gaming to be free of politics, if gencon wants to start making moral and politcal endorsements then I'll chose not to attend.
Everyone deserves to be treated equal IMO, but I don't think that the owners of gencon should be stepping into the political arena and using the convention as leverage.
Normally I agree with you, but (and maybe I'm stereotyping here a little) I think this affects enough of their demographic to potentially be worth them getting involved in for the sake of the moneys.
http://www.tabletopgaymers.org/conventions/gencon/gencon2014/
Okay, but that's a group there, not the organization. There's anime groups there too. They're kind of annoying, but I don't let them get in the way of my fun either. I look at it the same way as I'd look at, say, that blurb in the D&D 5th book that goes on about how you should think about how your character doesn't have to pander to established gender stereotypes: That is, roll my eyes and get on with life, and maybe troll my friends with it next time we play. Everyone hates me a little more, life goes on.
Actually, I know people the Gaymer ribbon would make super uncomfortable. As the single guy of the group of us that go every year, I might have to pick one up and make creepy advances on some of my friends. Might get some free drinks at the bars from some very nice guys, I'm sure. Still not an issue: Opportunity!
Wake me up when they hang rainbow flags and have mandatory pride parades through the halls.
Bookwrack's supporting your point about their demographic numbers affected, not countering it.
19370
Post by: daedalus
I see that now. Well, to be fair, I never said I wasn't stupid.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
daedalus wrote:I see that now. Well, to be fair, I never said I wasn't stupid.
Eh, we all make mistakes.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
But that's their plan! The gays are trying to turn our kids gay!  edit: damn, triple ninjed
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Ahtman wrote:Pence to sign religious freedom bill Thursday in private ceremony
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (March 25, 2015)– Indiana Governor Mike Pence will sign Indiana’s controversial religious freedom restoration bill, SB 101, in a private ceremony Thursday. This comes after Mayor Greg Ballard spoke out against the bill Wednesday.
“I don’t believe this legislation truly represents our state or our capital city,” Ballard said.
For those who don't know, which I would guess are most since you don't live here, the mayor is a Republican.
Wait, you live in Indiana?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Ignore.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I had no idea. I live in North West IN
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
This entire Gaymer stuff is a stupid and foolish idea to begin with. It's about as stupid as calling female gamers "gamer girls". Using such a terminology highly promotes seperation instead of identifying with one larger group, i.e. gamers.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Texas Wants you GenCon... You know you wish to come to Texas....
Really good for making a stand like this!
320
Post by: Platuan4th
I'd be good with Texas.
86211
Post by: Asterios
Well the bill was just signed into law by the Governor, so lets see how this plays out.
94245
Post by: Freya
Asterios wrote:Well the bill was just signed into law by the Governor, so lets see how this plays out.
That's really not a surprise at all but I was kinda hoping for a retake of the superbowl VS Arizona. My guess is that this is gonna force a supreme court intervention.
80999
Post by: jasper76
If GenCon decides to leave, I bet it will all be blamed away by Indianans, if that's the correct term, on the political axe to grind by the individual event organizers, rather than on their own decisions on who they elect, what bills they support, and what the consequences are. Its a Brave New World, and homosexual couples are a permanent part of the landscape, so why not just decide to play nice in future?
241
Post by: Ahtman
It is not.
Don't confuse the few idiots with a modicum of power with everyone in the state either. I already posted how the Republican Mayor of Indianapolis was against this bill, and there are a lot of others as well who aren't so dyed in the wool they are ignorant about what the bill is actually about. There are many Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans who don't care for this law. In the end it will be shot down by the courts because it is pants on head stupid, but before that it will make all Hoosiers look like backwards idiots.
80999
Post by: jasper76
George Takei's FB response:
I am outraged that Gov. Pence would sign such a divisive measure into law. He has made it clear that LGBT couples, like Brad and me, are now unwelcome in his state. The notion that this bill was not driven by animus against our community is belied by the record and frankly insulting. I will join many in demanding that socially responsible companies withdraw their business, conferences and support from his state and that LGBTs and our friends and supporters refuse to visit or do business with Indiana. It is a sad day for the Hoosier state, and indeed for the many good people of Indiana, for whom this law now stands as a terrible blight upon that state's reputation.
86211
Post by: Asterios
 Freya wrote:Asterios wrote:Well the bill was just signed into law by the Governor, so lets see how this plays out.
That's really not a surprise at all but I was kinda hoping for a retake of the superbowl VS Arizona. My guess is that this is gonna force a supreme court intervention.
I'm curious how this will play out in the Supreme court, Personal freedom versus Religious freedom.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!
94245
Post by: Freya
I'm willing to bet that Gen con will take their business to California now. I doubt that they'd go to any state that doesn't have protections for the LGB community after their public statement and of all the states that make sense, california is the top of the list in my mind.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
Sounds like a wonderful vacation spot for gay couples! Get denied service, then win a wonderul trip to the Courts???
241
Post by: Ahtman
That is how one ends up thinking this is a perfectly normal bill and ignoring what it is actually about.
94245
Post by: Freya
Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
To insinuate that this law wasn't and isn't intended to be used for the purpose of discriminating against the LGBT community in a legal fashion is both insulting and ignorant. How many lawsuits have we seen in the last year that have been as simple as "you're gay and I'm religious and I don't want you here"? Even here in oregon we had one and we're liberal!
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!
Newsflash: Nowhere in the Christian Bible states that you can't do business with gay people.
And Religious freedom doesn't mean freedom to impose your religion on others.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Asterios wrote: Freya wrote:Asterios wrote:Well the bill was just signed into law by the Governor, so lets see how this plays out.
That's really not a surprise at all but I was kinda hoping for a retake of the superbowl VS Arizona. My guess is that this is gonna force a supreme court intervention.
I'm curious how this will play out in the Supreme court, Personal freedom versus Religious freedom.
What personal freedom is being violated? Nobody has the right to work into a business and demand that the business engage in commerce with him/.her. Businesses have always had the right to refuse to do business with people.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
Come to Des Moines. Iowa has gay marriage and such :-D
On a more serious question....
Does anybody else rember the signs in businesses that said "We have the right to refuse service to anybody".
Wonder whatever happened to that notion....
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Freya wrote: To insinuate that this law wasn't and isn't intended to be used for the purpose of discriminating against the LGBT community in a legal fashion is both insulting and ignorant. How many lawsuits have we seen in the last year that have been as simple as "you're gay and I'm religious and I don't want you here"? Even here in oregon we had one and we're liberal!
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/568#digest-heading It does nothing but giving religious store owners the legal basis to go to court and decide who they want to commerce with. It's up to them to show that their rights have been "substantially burdened". Good luck with that. If you don't want others to be able to have their ideas / beliefs be represented by the law, then you have a problem with how democracy / state of law works. But just keep the hatemongering up. Like all businesses will suddenly stop providing service to gays. They obviously will. ALL of them! This isn't an overreaction at all. NOT AT AAAAAAAALL!
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
PhantomViper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!
Newsflash: Nowhere in the Christian Bible states that you can't do business with gay people.
And Religious freedom doesn't mean freedom to impose your religion on others.
Courts don't decide whats right, only what is legal. Last I checked it's still illegal to force somebody to enter into a business contract with you against his/her will. If an entity doesn't want my business I don't have a legal right to force them to take my money in exchange for goods or services.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Freya wrote: Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
To insinuate that this law wasn't and isn't intended to be used for the purpose of discriminating against the LGBT community in a legal fashion is both insulting and ignorant. How many lawsuits have we seen in the last year that have been as simple as "you're gay and I'm religious and I don't want you here"? Even here in oregon we had one and we're liberal!
Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits. Automatically Appended Next Post: PhantomViper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!
Newsflash: Nowhere in the Christian Bible states that you can't do business with gay people.
And Religious freedom doesn't mean freedom to impose your religion on others.
They're not imposing their religion on others. Others are trying to impose their beliefs on the religious.
Again if I don't want to contract with you, why should I be forced to?
61618
Post by: Desubot
Freya wrote:I'm willing to bet that Gen con will take their business to California now.
All of this right now thanks.
94245
Post by: Freya
Prestor Jon wrote:
What personal freedom is being violated? Nobody has the right to work into a business and demand that the business engage in commerce with him/.her. Businesses have always had the right to refuse to do business with people.
That's not actually true... I hate to bring up the 1950's but let's just take a moment to think back to the days when you could refuse to do business with someone based on the color of their skin or their sex. I'm pretty sure that's not legal to do. In the same way, turning someone away from your public sector business because you don't like the color of their skin, the fact that they're female or because they are some form of LGBTQIA is simply immoral and disrespectful if not entirely illegal.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Frazzled wrote:
Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/01/jury-awards-150k-to-employee-who-refused-mark-of-the-beast-hand-scanner/
An employee who refused to submit to biometric hand scanning because he feared the scanner would imprint him with the “Mark of the Beast,” was awarded $150,000 in damages by a federal jury last week.
Last Thursday a federal jury ruled in favor of Beverly R. Butcher Jr., a general laborer at the Consol Energy/Consolidation Coal Co.’s Mannington mining operations, who said he was forced to retire because of his religious beliefs after refusing to use new biometric technology used to track employee attendance and time.
Butcher refused to use the new technology because he feared the technology was associated with the Antichrist and would imprint him with the “Mark of The Beast,” a reference to a passage from the book of Revelation in the Bible.
Despite a letter from the scanner manufacturer, Recognition Systems Inc., which emphasized that its hand scanners “do not in any way have the ability to detect … or place the ‘mark of the Beast’ or any other mark on a person’s hand,” Butcher refused to utilize the technology, claiming it violated his religious beliefs.
Given rulings like this and the reactions to finding that all religions will be protected -- like satanism if one recalls the other threads -- one wonders how long these laws will stand.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
You don't even understand the issue. You still think that this bill allows people to refuse business to everyone - and as stated above, it doesn't. But keep believing.
94245
Post by: Freya
Frazzled wrote:Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Freya wrote: Frazzled wrote:Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
80999
Post by: jasper76
Freya wrote: Frazzled wrote:Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its not outrageous. Demanding Civil Rights is more accuraely classified as 'uppity'.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Prestor Jon wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Sigvatr wrote:I like how people immediately jump to the conclusion that this was passed with the sole intention to actively oppress gays. When in fact, this merely allows people to deny service and go to court about it with the court then deciding whether religious freedom has been violated or not.
But nah, just keep shoving down agendas. Screw rational thinking. We don't need those pesky courts deciding on what's right or not, we know it better!
Newsflash: Nowhere in the Christian Bible states that you can't do business with gay people.
And Religious freedom doesn't mean freedom to impose your religion on others.
Courts don't decide whats right, only what is legal. Last I checked it's still illegal to force somebody to enter into a business contract with you against his/her will. If an entity doesn't want my business I don't have a legal right to force them to take my money in exchange for goods or services.
I'm not an expert in US law by any means, but doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 kind of says that you do if you are a member of a Protected class (that Gay people aren't... yet)? Automatically Appended Next Post: Sigvatr wrote:You don't even understand the issue. You still think that this bill allows people to refuse business to everyone - and as stated above, it doesn't. But keep believing.
No, you're right, it just allows them to refuse business to gay people.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 reds8n wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/01/jury-awards-150k-to-employee-who-refused-mark-of-the-beast-hand-scanner/
An employee who refused to submit to biometric hand scanning because he feared the scanner would imprint him with the “Mark of the Beast,” was awarded $150,000 in damages by a federal jury last week.
Last Thursday a federal jury ruled in favor of Beverly R. Butcher Jr., a general laborer at the Consol Energy/Consolidation Coal Co.’s Mannington mining operations, who said he was forced to retire because of his religious beliefs after refusing to use new biometric technology used to track employee attendance and time.
Butcher refused to use the new technology because he feared the technology was associated with the Antichrist and would imprint him with the “Mark of The Beast,” a reference to a passage from the book of Revelation in the Bible.
Despite a letter from the scanner manufacturer, Recognition Systems Inc., which emphasized that its hand scanners “do not in any way have the ability to detect … or place the ‘mark of the Beast’ or any other mark on a person’s hand,” Butcher refused to utilize the technology, claiming it violated his religious beliefs.
Given rulings like this and the reactions to finding that all religions will be protected -- like satanism if one recalls the other threads -- one wonders how long these laws will stand.
Its not based on law but the First Amendment.
For the record TBone the Magnificent had a particular enjoyment of giving everyone the "mark of the beast," especially neighbor dogs. He would try to give them the mark through the fence every time they were near.
"Beware the Mark of the Beast, for it smells like turpentine and old man ass."
80999
Post by: jasper76
@Phantom Viper: That's correct. Homosexuals are currently not included as a protected class by the Civil Rights Act.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
...if they can prove to a Court that their religious freedom is substantially burdened. Little detail. A little one. Very small.
94245
Post by: Freya
You do realize you just made the perfect case for LGBT rights? You know... federal nondiscrimination laws vs a single governor who decides to make a law that opposes the rule of law. Just sayin
221
Post by: Frazzled
Freya wrote: Frazzled wrote:Then quit having activists stirring this up with selective outrage/suits.
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Freya wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
What personal freedom is being violated? Nobody has the right to work into a business and demand that the business engage in commerce with him/.her. Businesses have always had the right to refuse to do business with people.
That's not actually true... I hate to bring up the 1950's but let's just take a moment to think back to the days when you could refuse to do business with someone based on the color of their skin or their sex. I'm pretty sure that's not legal to do. In the same way, turning someone away from your public sector business because you don't like the color of their skin, the fact that they're female or because they are some form of LGBTQIA is simply immoral and disrespectful if not entirely illegal.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private". That is completely different from giving anyone the legal right to force a business to engage in commerce with them. If I own a business and a prospective customer walks in I can choose not to do business with that person and as long as that person can't prove in a court of law that I descriminated based upon race, color, religion or national origin it's perfectly legal. People get thrown out of places of business all the time for all kinds of reasons.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Sigvatr wrote:
...if they can prove to a Court that their religious freedom is substantially burdened. Little detail. A little one. Very small.
And when, pray tell, is that supposed to happen? I'm just trying to wrap my head aroun d the logistics. Is the restauraunteur supposed to go down to the courthouse and ask for permission to discriminate beforehand. Or is the expectation that they discriminate first, and ask for permission from the courts later?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Freya wrote: You do realize you just made the perfect case for LGBT rights? You know... federal nondiscrimination laws vs a single governor who decides to make a law that opposes the rule of law. Just sayin
I take it that you're very young and haven't gotten into much contact with the law yet...or how a state of law works. If people feel unfairly treated, they are to go to a court of law and it is then decided whether they are right nor not. You can then appeal the decision if it did not turn out in your favor. Your preferred method of picking up burning torches and raiding stores has been outdated for...quite a while. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote: And when, pray tell, is that supposed to happen? Is the restauraunteur supposed to go down to the courthouse and ask not to serve a gay couple immediately after they ask for a table. Or is the expectation that they will deny service first, and ask for permission from the courts later?
The latter obviously. Hint: that's how law works. You can't file a claim without a reason. Have a reason, then file a claim. You don't think that it's worth going to court to? Then why do you care to begin with?
80999
Post by: jasper76
So basically, "Come to Indiana. We might discriminate against you, we might not, but if we do, we've got courts that'll lend you an ear just like everyone else, except ours are stacked against your favor because we protect the rights of the religious to discriminate with court apporval"???.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
jasper76 wrote:So basically, "Come to Indiana. We might discriminate against you, we might not, but if we do, we've got courts that'll lend you an ear". Why bother passing a bill like this at all if its the way the law already works?
So basically, come to Indiana, have your religious beliefs oppressed, or not, but if we do, you can't go to court for it. Wait, that sounds familiar. This is about equality. Discrimination works both ways, even if you don't want it to work that way.
94245
Post by: Freya
Frazzled wrote: Freya wrote:
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Freya wrote: Frazzled wrote: Freya wrote:
how is it outrageous to want to be treated like a human being?
Its outrageous in making someone else work for you, despite their religious beliefs.
Hey David Duke has feelings too. He just wants to be treated like a human being.
No... not being allowed to discriminate against someone isn't then in itself discrimination.
Discriminating someone based on their (Reglious) beliefs still is. As far as I can remember.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
jasper76 wrote:So basically, "Come to Indiana. We might discriminate against you, we might not, but if we do, we've got courts that'll lend you an ear".
Why bother passing a bill like this at all if its the way the law already works?
Because politicians like to pander to subsets of their constituents in an effort to earn their support for future campaigns. Also, in an effort to bring clarity to older laws. LGBT descrimination wasn't included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so is sexuality a legal reason to refuse to engage in commerce with somebody? To what extent does religious freedom allow a business owner to determine with whom he/she conducts business with? If you want legal clarification of those questions you need to pass legislation.
80999
Post by: jasper76
Prestor Jon wrote: jasper76 wrote:So basically, "Come to Indiana. We might discriminate against you, we might not, but if we do, we've got courts that'll lend you an ear".
Why bother passing a bill like this at all if its the way the law already works?
Because politicians like to pander to subsets of their constituents in an effort to earn their support for future campaigns. Also, in an effort to bring clarity to older laws. LGBT descrimination wasn't included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so is sexuality a legal reason to refuse to engage in commerce with somebody? To what extent does religious freedom allow a business owner to determine with whom he/she conducts business with? If you want legal clarification of those questions you need to pass legislation.
The legal side of this is actually less interesting to me than the statement the Indiana legislature and executive has just broadcast to homosexual couples and supporters of Civil Rights nation-wide (really worldwide, if anyone even cares about this outside the US). I am sure it has been heard loud and clear.
Just another state to put on the Do Not Disturb List. 'm sure my presence will not be missed. Say hi to Arizona, Indiana!
|
|
