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.

 Orlanth wrote:

True, but then the opposite is also true. If as homosexual walkings into a Christian cafe they will probably get served. It's the in your face activists that would cause offense.

Then maybe people should stop being an "in your face" Christian activist. As you say, the opposite is also true.

 Orlanth wrote:

Even so gay bars can be very polarized...

Well, yeah, they're gay bars. You should have realized how polarized they are with the adjective. Conservative Christians are likely to be mocked in such establishments.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm sure homosexual people looking to visit Indiana will agree with you. /sarcasm

Of course they wont and I don't blame them.
But not for any valid reason, but because the media hype has raised a scare story saying that Indiana will discriminate against gays.
In actually it this is far from the truth, but the truth is not good copy for those who want a juicier headline, or the opportunity to point fingers at the GOP.
Indiana however addresses the issues of conflicting rights allowing each person to practice their own belief system without fear of litigation for standing up for their own ethos.
If anything it will result in less homophobia not more, because lawsuit bait loopholes are being closed.

Ask yourself this question, which society is going to have more social tension:

1. A society where an anti-religious activist (not necessarily homosexual) goes to a provider of a service who happens to follow a religious ethos to order a service done that conflicts with that ethos to force a dilemma. Either the vendor compromises his standards to refuses by which you may manufacture offense for a lawsuit.

2. A society where that loophole is closed.

Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

True, but then the opposite is also true. If as homosexual walkings into a Christian cafe they will probably get served. It's the in your face activists that would cause offense.

Then maybe people should stop being an "in your face" Christian activist. As you say, the opposite is also true.

Maybe people should stop being "in your face" gay activists.
Wait....
We can't say that can't we.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Even so gay bars can be very polarized...

Well, yeah, they're gay bars. You should have realized how polarized they are with the adjective. Conservative Christians are likely to be mocked in such establishments.

 Orlanth wrote:
Society of itself has already condemned discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. However bashing religious people is sort of trendy, a bit like 60's racism.

Perhaps its true that the zeitgeist has shifted in the UK, perhaps the US at large, and the western media. But nonetheless Indiana just enacted potential court protections for discriminatory behavior, and several states have such bills in the pipeline apparently. This is all fun when we're talking about wedding cakes and parties. But what about doctors? Schools? Pharmacies? Landlords? The stuff where discrimination and denial of service hurts people the most.

Drinking fountains? Cafes?

Law Offices? Banks?

Eric M. Lang, well know boardgame designer has been sharing his thoughts.


https://twitter.com/eric_lang

 Orlanth wrote:

Maybe people should stop being "in your face" gay activists.

Do you hold the same opinion regarding heterosexual activists?

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually my comments have nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the gay community.

Given that you are a rather vehement Christian, and conservative to boot, I think the former is a lie.

 Orlanth wrote:

Why are you defending it? Are you perhaps saying its a given that Christians shouldn't be there?

Not at all, I simply think that a conservative Christian attending a gay bar is probably trying to make a statement.

 Orlanth wrote:

Christian store owner who refuses to provide a service because it is being used to promote gay values vs a Christian who gets abuse for just walking into a gay pub and is identified as such.

That is not the standard I expressed. Please do not misrepresent me.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

The set is correctly defined in the bill, its is about Religious Freedom

You have previously defined atheism as a religion. Would you be alright with an atheist refusing to serve a Christian, for example?

I would be alright with it.

Christian can take his/her money elsewhere...

@thread: Keep in mind guys that this is similar to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the other 18 or so state's own laws.

Hobby Lobby prevailed over HHS' rulings recent, in no small part because of RFRA.

Having said all of that... GenCon is more the free to go somewhere else in protest. I have no issues with that whatsoever.

The question nobody is asking is very simple:

What freedoms didn't you have before that this law now provides?

The answer is also very simple:

the right to discriminate.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

Honestly, it's a moot fething point.

Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

Honestly, it's a moot fething point.

Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.

How can you possibly know this?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

Honestly, it's a moot fething point.

Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.

How can you possibly know this?

Because I've been to GenCon. Many times. There aren't any businesses that are going to turn anyone away. The city embraces GenCon fully.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Society of itself has already condemned discrimination on grounds of sexual preference. However bashing religious people is sort of trendy, a bit like 60's racism.

Perhaps its true that the zeitgeist has shifted in the UK, perhaps the US at large, and the western media. But nonetheless Indiana just enacted potential court protections for discriminatory behavior, and several states have such bills in the pipeline apparently. This is all fun when we're talking about wedding cakes and parties. But what about doctors? Schools? Pharmacies? Landlords? The stuff where discrimination and denial of service hurts people the most.

How does being gay, or any other potentially incompatible effect a doctor's service? Or a school or pharmacist. Non-participation doesn't come into that.
You should read the legislation. The religious freedom bill is there to enshrine non-participation in legal right.

Section 9: A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim of defence in a judicial or administrative hearing...

What is 'substantial burden'? It involves being forced to do things in the workplace, or society at large which are against the tenets of the faiths concerned. It does not condone or permit hate crime.

Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden. There could be in some circumstances concerning gender, especially in Islam but those are already covered.

A printing company asked by a gay rights organisation, or another faith, to print flyers is being substantially burdened however, as they have the legally defensible right now not to in Indiana, and depending on the wording of the legislation in allegedly nineteen other states.

The idea that homosexuals will suddenly no longer be able to find schools or doctors because of this new law is frankly hysterical.
Also its not fair for the media to focus this entirely on the homosexual community. The more I look at this the most basic non participation will likely be interfaith. However interfaith non participation is so casual that its overlooked.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

Honestly, it's a moot fething point.

Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.

Neither of us can possibly speak for every attendee or every worker or business owner in the state.
Whilst there will be people out there willing to sit on their various views and take money from everyone, there will also always be people without compromise.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

Honestly, it's a moot fething point.

Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.

How can you possibly know this?

Because I've been to GenCon. Many times. There aren't any businesses that are going to turn anyone away. The city embraces GenCon fully.

Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that sometimes people have to travel through other towns to get to a place. What with this awesome technology we have to immediately appear wherever we want.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that sometimes people have to travel through other towns to get to a place. What with this awesome technology we have to immediately appear wherever we want.

No worries. Bad memories happen.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

http://files.gencon.com/Letter_to_Attendees.pdf

Very well handled.

2020, that's longer than I'd expected.

Honestly, it's a moot fething point.

Not a single GenCon attendee will notice any kind of difference. They never were going to.

How can you possibly know this?

Because I've been to GenCon. Many times. There aren't any businesses that are going to turn anyone away. The city embraces GenCon fully.

Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that sometimes people have to travel through other towns to get to a place. What with this awesome technology we have to immediately appear wherever we want.

Well, unless folks are stopping at gas stations that tackle you and demand to know your sexual orientation before you can use your credit card to fill up at the pump, the impact of this law will be extremely limited/non-existant to attendees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That being said, I'm fine with GENCON taking a stance on this. But I don't honestly believe the law will adversely impact them, or their attendees.

 Orlanth wrote:

Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.

That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.

 Orlanth wrote:

The idea that homosexuals will suddenly no longer be able to find schools or doctors because of this new law is frankly hysterical.

They will be able to find both, but it will be more difficult. I imagine it will also be more difficult for women to acquire birth control.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.

That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.

I don't know if it holds true with EMTs, but wasn't there something a year back or so that stated the police were under no obligation to risk their lives for someone else?

 djones520 wrote:

That being said, I'm fine with GENCON taking a stance on this. But I don't honestly believe the law will adversely impact them, or their attendees.

I say this (genuinely without sarcasm, I'm just curious) but do you feel it should have to directly affect folks, before Gon Con took notice?

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

That being said, I'm fine with GENCON taking a stance on this. But I don't honestly believe the law will adversely impact them, or their attendees.

I say this (genuinely without sarcasm, I'm just curious) but do you feel it should have to directly affect folks, before Gon Con took notice?

Of course not. Opinions are like donkey-caves, everyones got one, and everyone is allowed to talk about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Providing medical treatment for a homosexual/non believing/any other potential condition patient is a standard service, there is no substantial burden.

That may be true in the UK, but it is not true in the US. Remember the US does not have a healthcare system like the NHS, there is no such thing as a "standard service" here.

 Orlanth wrote:

The idea that homosexuals will suddenly no longer be able to find schools or doctors because of this new law is frankly hysterical.

They will be able to find both, but it will be more difficult. I imagine it will also be more difficult for women to acquire birth control.

No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.

 djones520 wrote:
No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.

You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.

You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?

So are you saying condoms don't count?

Or that natural family planning is too hard to do?

 Peregrine wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No... it really won't. A woman can go into a walmart and pick up a pack of condoms any day of the week, at any hour, just like before.

You do realize that there are other, more reliable, birth control options available, right? And that those options require a doctor to provide them?

Sure, but for the sake of saying that people are actually going to have a hard time finding the pill/shot/etc... (they won't), there will always be options out there. Always. Period.

 cincydooley wrote:
So are you saying condoms don't count?

They do, but that doesn't change the fact that allowing doctors to say "Jesus told me I can't give this to you" instead of doing their job means limiting the options women have for birth control. And it means limiting it to one of the less-effective options instead of the most reliable ones.

Or that natural family planning is too hard to do?

It is, because it requires careful record keeping and data collection, doesn't work for all women (if their body isn't consistent enough in producing the necessary signs), requires huge amounts of self control, etc. The failure rate for couples who actually use it (as opposed to theoretical perfect users that rarely exist in the real world) is very high compared to alternative options, which makes it suitable only for people who would prefer not to have a child at the moment but wouldn't be too upset if they did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Sure, but for the sake of saying that people are actually going to have a hard time finding the pill/shot/etc... (they won't), there will always be options out there. Always. Period.

So it's ok to limit people to less effective options because Jesus said so?

If you want a lack of press and a lot of white people and a lot of Christians you will enjoy this photo of the signing:
[url=http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/media-public-not-invited-to-private-signing-ceremony-for-religious-freedom-bill]
[/url]

 Peregrine wrote:


They do, but that doesn't change the fact that allowing doctors to say "Jesus told me I can't give this to you" instead of doing their job means limiting the options women have for birth control. And it means limiting it to one of the less-effective options instead of the most reliable ones.

Then what do we have planned parenthood for? Aren't they EXPRESSLY FOR this type of thing?

And that ignores the most reliable form of birth control.

Also @Ahtman - That photo is sad and hilarious all at the same time.