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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.

Discriminating against discriminators is discriminating.....

 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?

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

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?

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.

 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.

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.

 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?

 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.

 Desubot wrote:
Didnt we have that cake discrimination thing before?

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.

 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.

I hope it does not happen.

 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.

 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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

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.

How is a gaming convention involved again?

 Frazzled wrote:
How is a gaming convention involved again?

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.

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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is a gaming convention involved again?

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

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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.

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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

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?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is this an issue for a gaming convention again?

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?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How is a gaming convention involved again?

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.

Anyone that has EVER been to GenCon knows how accommodating Indy is to the convention. They're not going anywhere anytime soon.