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.

**Dreadwinter**

djones520 wrote:

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.

So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?

**Peregrine**

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

So it's ok to take away options as long as someone else can cover up your failure to do your job properly?

PS: did you know that many of the same people who support the right to refuse proper treatment "because Jesus said so" also want to get rid of Planned Parenthood?

**dogma**

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.

But she couldn't necessarily go into a government sponsored clinic, or hospital, and pick up birth control; making it more difficult for women to acquire birth control.

**djones520**

Dreadwinter wrote:
djones520 wrote:

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.

So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?

No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

People outwardly express their heterosexuality all the time. They wear clothes to flaunt the necessary characteristics constantly, they can do this because most citizens consider it to be normal.

**Dreadwinter**

djones520 wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
djones520 wrote:

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.

So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?

No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?

Sure, it is absolutely possible. Now it is my turn. If you go to a gas station in Indiana, should you be scared of having your service denied for paying inside with cash?

**Torga_DW**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

People outwardly express their heterosexuality all the time. They wear clothes to flaunt the necessary characteristics constantly, they can do this because most citizens consider it to be normal.

Say what? Unless they're cross-dressing (which is a separate issue entirely), people tend to wear clothes because its 1) a legal requirement and 2) hopefully suited to their environment. I've never been to a department store that had homosexual and heterosexual sections for clothing. Unless it's a man in woman's clothing, you generally can't tell diddly-squat about a person's sexual orientation from what they wear.

**stanman**

djones520 wrote:

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?

Obviously everyone that's gay is immediately identifiable by the rainbow capes, leather suspender bear suits, or plaid flannel shirts that they wear. Plus the air around them just shimmers in a fabulous fashion at all times. And there's glitter, lots of glitter.

**Torga_DW**

stanman wrote:
djones520 wrote:

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?

Obviously everyone that's gay is immediately identifiable by the rainbow capes, leather suspender bear suits, or plaid flannel shirts that they wear. Plus the air around them just shimmers in a fabulous fashion at all times. And there's glitter, lots of glitter.

I always knew strippers were lesbians!

**BobtheInquisitor**

djones520 wrote:
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.

Some women need to take the pill for other medical concerns, such as endometriosis.

**Buttery Commissar**

djones520 wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
djones520 wrote:

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.

So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?

No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?

There are things we take for granted, little gestures that do single a couple out a gay/straight/friends. It's not always a case of feeling the need to fly a flag or represent oneself.

Okay, so we dial it back a little to a situation where you have to interact with a human for the transaction. Say you need snacks, and your partner is busting for a slash, so you both hop out and head into the actual gas station.
A M/F couple could walk in together, holding hands and it wouldn't be considered in your face, a little peck on the cheek as s/he nips to the back to use the facilities, "be back soon.".
A gay couple doing the same (would that be 'throwing it out"? It's a small, basic human contact that everyone deserves if they desire it) would undoubtedly cause raised eyebrows in some circles, worse in others.
You don't have to be the living embodiment of a TV stereotype to be noticed.

**dogma**

Torga_DW wrote:
Unless it's a man in woman's clothing, you generally can't tell diddly-squat about a person's sexual orientation from what they wear.

So you're asserting that you can determine who is a man, and who is a woman, based on clothing alone?

**Torga_DW**

No, i was just near-hysterically typing after your comment that you can tell a person's sexual orientation from their clothing. Which you can't.

**dogma**

Torga_DW wrote:
No, i was just near-hysterically typing after your comment that you can tell a person's sexual orientation from their clothing. Which you can't.

No, that's BS. A person "hysterically typing" in response to a comment would not be so articulate. What really happened is that you didn't like my criticism of your comment, and got upset.

**jasper76**

Orlanth wrote:

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.

I guess one could think its a hysterical concept, until it actually happens. Then it won't be so funny. Unfortunately, healthcare in the US remains largely a private enterprise, and private schools are still private as far as I know, and since religion and religious beliefs are so nebulous, almost any activity in principal could be construed as a substantial burden to the free exercise of their religion.

You act as though anti-homosexual bigots who would take advantage of this new law to discriminate don't exist. Maybe things are different in the UK.

I notice you didn't say word 1 about Landlords. Have they be given a new legal avenue to discriminate against qualified homosexuals that they didn't have before? From the wording of the bill that you provided, it looks like they have (as well as doctor's, private schools, pharmacies, etc)

**streamdragon**

Ya know what, too late, joke's over. I messed it all up.

**Frazzled**

Are you saying that you think you think things were demonstrably better in the 20th century than they are now? Society has improved over time in regards to social and legal equality, I think even a cursory look at history shows that to be true.

I'm saying that things are always getting better is an absurd joke.

Things were not better in the 20th century based on the absolute level of killy killy. Considering the ME versio of WWIII may have started yesterday the 21st century is not off to a great start.

People saying things get better ignore what happened to the Maya, Inca, Tang, Sung, Caliphate pre Mongolia, Dacia etc. etc. etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

stanman wrote:
Freya wrote:

Out of curiosity, have you ever been kicked out of a place of business because you're christian? Refused services because you wear a cross necklace? I have. I've been kicked out of places because of who I am and I can tell you it's very dehumanizing. It's one thing to say "I don't like that team so I don't wanna bake that cake" but it's another thing entirely to say "I don't like the person that you are so I don't want to bake you a cake because you're a sinner". Do you see the difference now?

You shouldn't fixate too much on being called a sinner, according to the teachings bible we are all sinners before the lord (gay or straight). Nobody is free of sin, to be born to this world means you are flawed and sinful no matter what. We can aspire to over come our sins and be forgiven for them, but as human beings we can never truly be free of sin as long as we walk on this earth.

It sounds like the person refusing to bake a gay cake needs to listen to what's actually being said in church sermons and remove the plank in their eye first before worrying about the splinters in others.

That said I've had plenty of people attempt to chastise and insult me based on the fact that I am Christian and they were of a different religion or atheist. (heck even a different Christian denomination) But I try not to pay them much mind because the world is full a-holes who don't respect anyone but themselves.

**timetowaste85**

Women use birth control pills for a variety of reasons other than actual birth control. I saw one person in the thread mention that. Everyone seeming to side with the Dumbshit law is ignoring this fact when they say to "just buy condoms at Walmart".

And as for telling gay or straight...it has long been a stereotype that homosexual males have a particular lisp to their speak. While it isn't always the case, I have heard it on more than a handful of occasions. And even if it isn't a sure fire way to test, it does still hit the stereotype. It will be enough for a bigot to deny service.

**Dreadclaw69**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Some women need to take the pill for other medical concerns, such as endometriosis.

It has been my experience, anecdotal as it is, that religious institutions have no issue with covering this or similar treatments for medical reasons.

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

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

Do you hold the same opinion regarding heterosexual activists?

I dont hold either opinion, I was commenting on yours.
There is a feeling in society that you can be "in your face" on some issues as a right, but as others it's a problem, even if both are legal.

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Orlanth wrote:

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

I'm curious at to what the opinions would be if the roles were reversed; if a Christian baker is used by a gay individual is that "trying to make a statement"?

**cincydooley**

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

So it's ok to take away options as long as someone else can cover up your failure to do your job properly?

I'm not convinced there will be any options taken away.

PS: did you know that many of the same people who support the right to refuse proper treatment "because Jesus said so" also want to get rid of Planned Parenthood?

You're kidding me?!?!? Are you saying people that believe contraception and abortion end life are opposed to a place that primarily deals in giving contraception to people that can't afford it? That is shocking to me.

**Orlanth**

Buttery Commissar wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
djones520 wrote:

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.

So, what you are saying is, as long as they do not attempt to interact with people in Indiana, they are safe?

No... that is not at all what I said, in any way, shape, or form.

Is it possible to interact with someone without throwing out the fact that your gay? I manage to talk to people all the time without expressing my sexual orientation. I'm sure others can handle that as well.

But lets say you are driving to Gen Con. You're coming from the east, and need to stop for gas somewhere. Ok, so you stop at the gas station, you get out, you put your card in the machine, you pump the gas, you leave. At what point did being gay have anything to do with that? At what point did any interaction with anyone have to do with being gay? Explain to me how being gay would have caused a GenCon attendee from being provided a service there?

There are things we take for granted, little gestures that do single a couple out a gay/straight/friends. It's not always a case of feeling the need to fly a flag or represent oneself.

Okay, so we dial it back a little to a situation where you have to interact with a human for the transaction. Say you need snacks, and your partner is busting for a slash, so you both hop out and head into the actual gas station.
A M/F couple could walk in together, holding hands and it wouldn't be considered in your face, a little peck on the cheek as s/he nips to the back to use the facilities, "be back soon.".
A gay couple doing the same (would that be 'throwing it out"? It's a small, basic human contact that everyone deserves if they desire it) would undoubtedly cause raised eyebrows in some circles, worse in others.
You don't have to be the living embodiment of a TV stereotype to be noticed.

This is all conjecture based on media hype rather than knowledge of the legislation.

Lets look at the legal reality rather than the scaremongering please.

If the clerk at the gas station noticed the attendee filling his car was gay what can he do abourt it. Refuse service?
No.
First in order to refuse service it needs to be an individual action which places 'substantial burden'.

Is it a 'substantial burden' to accept the card at the checkout?
Again no, the religious gas station clerk is not being asked to compromise his faith or standards.

**d-usa**

Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.

Do you have any links to these instances? I'm just interested in what the resolutions were, and what the legal landscape looked like.

**Orlanth**

d-usa wrote:
Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion and pediatricians who have fired patients because the patient's parents were gay.

And those acts are consequently of questionable legality.
A law doesn't prevent an offense taking place, it effects the response.

Should either refused client sue the body that refused service will have to show they have been 'substantially burdened' in order to mount that particular legal defence.
For example I cannot see the religious justification of refusing treatment to a child whose parents are gay, and if the parents sue and substantial burden is not established by the defendants lawyer the practice could be seriously out of pocket. This test case would indeed be useful.

This is probably happening because of the media hype and was not unexpected. If the media actually ran the truth about the new law rather than just tell everyone that it gives a carte blanche to refuse any service to gays then perhaps people would not be encouraged to do so.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
Yet we already have instances where pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions because of their religion

Indeed. I worked a stint as a customer service rep for a big pharma company on the pharmacy support side, and I had calls from women at least 2 or 3 times a week upset because they (or their daughters) wouldn't have their prescriptions filled because the pharmacist refused. In some parts of the country this gak is rampant.

If you have a aversion to filling a prescription, you need to find another job; because that is not a reasonable accommodation any more that a muslim checkout person refusing to check out people who are buying alcohol.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Orlanth wrote:
For example I cannot see the religious justification of refusing treatment to a child whose parents are gay, and if the parents sue and substantial burden is not established by the defendants lawyer the practice could be seriously out of pocket. This test case would indeed be useful.

IMO, I can see a court case going much, MUCH better for a pediatrician who "fired" a patient because the parents refused to vaccinate rather than because they were "X" (gay, hindu, jewish, pastafarian, etc)

But I do agree... depending on where such thing has occurred, if there is a law like the one in the OP on the books, it'll be a good test for everyone.

**whembly**

Right... so what are we truly arguing about here?

This bill, like the Federal RFRA, doesn't give you a blank check to discriminate.

**Frazzled**

Platuan4th wrote:
Gencon CEO's new letter:

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

So its just a ploy to get better contract terms and pull the old NFL "we're gonna move somewhere else if you don't give us a deal!" scam.

Excellent.