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.

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.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And that is something they have no business doing.

We'll just have to disagree on this point.

 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.

Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

Of course. Just like people with a different opinion can choose not to do commerce there.

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?

what it comes down to is GC has a deal with Indiana till 2020, so question is will the break the deal or not?

 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?

 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.

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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) what exactly are you referring to in that second point?

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) what exactly are you referring to in that second point?

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.

 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

 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:

 Frazzled wrote:
Can Chick Fil A have a political opinion?

 Grey Templar wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) what exactly are you referring to in that second point?

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?

 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.

 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).

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

2) what exactly are you referring to in that second point?

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're not similar situations like you claim.

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.

 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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They're not similar situations like you claim.

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.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its also inappropriate to say someone who would use this law is a bigot.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.