GenCon threatens to leave Indiana

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Sigvatr wrote:
Screw rational thinking.

That is how one ends up thinking this is a perfectly normal bill and ignoring what it is actually about.

**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!

**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.

**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.

**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....

**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!

**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.

**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?

**Desubot**

Freya wrote:
I'm willing to bet that Gen con will take their business to California now.

All of this right now thanks.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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

**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'.

**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.

**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."

**jasper76**

@Phantom Viper: That's correct. Homosexuals are currently not included as a protected class by the Civil Rights Act.

**Sigvatr**

PhantomViper wrote:

No, you're right, it just allows them to refuse business to gay people.

...if they can prove to a Court that their religious freedom is substantially burdened. Little detail. A little one. Very small.

**Freya**

Sigvatr wrote:
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

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

**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.

**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.

**jasper76**

Sigvatr wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

No, you're right, it just allows them to refuse business to gay people.

...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?

**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?

**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"???.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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!