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.

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 ?

Good for GenCon.

Good for GenCon!

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?

 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.

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.

 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!

How are things like this still a thing?

 Eldarain wrote:
How are things like this still a thing?

'Murica.

NY would be great. Or Connecticut.

Gen for GoodCon.

Con for GoodGen.

forCon good Gen.

 Hordini wrote:
forCon good Gen.

Gen gen GenGen

Gen and the Conograms?

Gensie and the Pussycons.

Let's call it there Gen-tlemen, back to the topic

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.

 Orlanth wrote:
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.

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.

'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

 Orlanth wrote:
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.

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.

 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.

Lance845 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
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.

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.

Asterios wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
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.

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...

 Orlanth wrote:
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.

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)

Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.

Lance845 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

Lance845 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
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.

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.

.....but.......Santa Cruz

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
.....but.......Santa Cruz

has no where to hold it, not too mention traffic on the 17 would be ugly.

I know. It would be awesome though..