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.

There's no other reason to act as a megaphone for fears that GenCon's own experience and inquiries do not support.

 Manchu wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So has anyone yet been able to provide any widespread evidence of discrimination against homosexuals in the state of Indiana?

According to GenCon on March 26:

Due to specific dialog with long-time partners in Indy, we believe that Gen Con attendees not only will receive the same great service and hospitality in 2015, but an even warmer response from the city.

And again on March 30:

Gen Con’s growth in Indianapolis has been tremendous. Our success is due in part to Hoosier hospitality and the acceptance of the Indy community.

And yet they still feel the need to fearmonger in the same letter:

[...] we are reading that some members of our community feel unsafe traveling to Indiana, subsequent to the passage of the RFRA law. We understand this sentiment, and will act to support safety

This kind of insincere mixed message is typical of cynically playing to the marketing.

That would have been the ideal time for GenCon to reach out to the Governor and work to clarify the matter for the attendees instead of grandstand and aid the misinformation. After all their letter makes it sound as though there has not been any targeting of a non-protected class that has been experienced in their whole time using Indy as a base.

Even assuming GenCon had any interest in the truth, God knows what would happen to the company if it dared to publicly acknowledge that the Indiana RFRA is not a threat to homosexual people.

@Manchu: Since you have sort of taken up the mantle for defending the merits of this law, can I ask you a question.

Forget US law, and the Constitution for a moment.

As a general principal, do you believe that religion is a valid source of justification for discrimination against classes of people?

What does this

 jasper76 wrote:
Since you have sort of taken up the mantle for defending the merits of this law, can I ask you a question.

have to do with this

 jasper76 wrote:
As a general principal, do you believe that religion is a valid source of justification for discrimination against classes of people?

?

Do you think I will step on a big red X just because you paint it on the ground?

 Manchu wrote:
Even assuming GenCon had any interest in the truth, God knows what would happen to the company if it dared to publicly acknowledge that the Indiana RFRA is not a threat to homosexual people.

Then the outrage would be turned against it.

Exactly my point. Imagine the insults, lies, and harassment GenCon would have to deal with if it actually engaged with the legal reality rather than the media-sponsored news entertainment bonanza.

 jasper76 wrote:

As a general principal, do you believe that religion is a valid source of justification for discrimination against classes of people?

Can I jump in?

What if a Muslim Halal restaurant mandates a dress code, such that women must wear hijab?

 Manchu wrote:
What does this

 jasper76 wrote:
Since you have sort of taken up the mantle for defending the merits of this law, can I ask you a question.

have to do with this

 jasper76 wrote:
As a general principal, do you believe that religion is a valid source of justification for discrimination against classes of people?

?

Do you think I will step on a big red X just because you paint it on the ground?

I don't get the joke. Are you not willing to give me an answer? Is this another "death threat" type issue. If so, I rescind the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

As a general principal, do you believe that religion is a valid source of justification for discrimination against classes of people?

Can I jump in?

What if a Muslim Halal restaurant mandates a dress code, such that women must wear hijab?

Of course you can! But you're going to have to phrase the question a bit more precisely for me to be able to answer.

I mean, if a Muslim Halal restaurateur mandates a dress code, then the sky is blue. I don't know what the question is.

Do you care to answer the question I posed to Manchu?

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't get the joke. Are you not willing to give me an answer? Is this another "death threat" type issue. If so, I rescind the question.

You say you want me to answer a question because I am talking about a law but the condition of the question is to forget everything about law. Then you ask a question centered on the term discrimination, which is a legal term. So what is the game?

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't get the joke. Are you not willing to give me an answer? Is this another "death threat" type issue. If so, I rescind the question.

You say you want me to answer a question because I am talking about a law but the condition of the question is to forget everything about law. Then you ask a question centered on the term discrimination, which is a legal term. So what is the game?

The game is curiosity.

 jasper76 wrote:
The game is curiosity.

Outside of the modern legal context, discrimination is a synonym for distinction. Religions not only make distinctions but exist because of them. Every religion distinguishes between believers and non-believers, for example. Does that slake your curiosity?

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
The game is curiosity.

Outside of the modern legal context, discrimination is a synonym for distinction. Religions not only make distinctions but exist because of them. Every religion distinguishes between believers and non-believers, for example. Does that slake your curiosity?

No, that's not the way I intended to use the word 'discrimination', although I do understand the definition you are using.

I meant: Discrimination: n. unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

Speaking only for my own faith, I do not believe that Christianity commends treating anyone poorly on any basis. But I also do not believe that refusing to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a valid and licit sacramental marriage is poor treatment. Furthermore, because I acknowledge the truth that sin is a fundamental condition of human history, I do not believe that Christianity provides a blueprint for the hard and often sinful work of this life: the preservation and management of the state, governance of the people, administration of the laws, etc.

My impression of the laws is that it protects vendors from providing goods or services to another person/group if that persons/group is not in accordance with their religious views.

Removing the chance to sue the florist who refused service to a gay wedding and was successfully sued.


Surely the US is big enough to allow people to just take their business elsewhere?

I know it is not discriminatory story but...

We contacted 3 bathroom renovators and got quotes in the last 3 months, all 3 came out and reviewed what we wanted. Only 1 returned a quote.
Do we feel aggrieved at the groups that didn't return a quote. No, but we will not be using the other groups ever again and they loose our business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a quick google search showed that 19 US states have similar or harder laws than Indiana.

 Manchu wrote:
Speaking only for my own faith, I do not believe that Christianity commends treating anyone poorly on any basis. But I also do not believe that refusing to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a valid and licit sacramental marriage is poor treatment. Furthermore, because I acknowledge the truth that sin is a fundamental condition of human history, I do not believe that Christianity provides a blueprint for the hard and often sinful work of this life: the preservation and management of the state, governance of the people, administration of the laws, etc.

My point of view as relates to this Indiana law, is that it doesn't seem to me that by asking for a cake for a gay wedding, the baker is being asked to acknowledge that a homosexual marriage is a "valid and licit sacramental marriage". That, IMO, would be a step too far. I am certain that there are Christian homosexuals who do want other straight Christians to acknowledge the supernatural elements they ascribe to their marriage. I am an atheist, so to me, the supernatural element of marriage is a non-issue. However, I sympathize with homosexuals here, because I truly don't believe that the vast majority of human beings in any meaningful way are capable of choosing the sex that attracts them physically and romantically.

The average non-Christian gay couple probably just wants a wedding cake, and if its not to much to ask, a smile and a thank you, or at the very least professionalism.



As a side note, and this is meant with only the tiniest bit of humor, I would not be surprised in the least if homosexual marriage was permitted by the Catholic Church before all 50 United States are issuing licenses. Go Francis!!!

 Manchu wrote:
But I also do not believe that refusing to acknowledge a homosexual relationship as a valid and licit sacramental marriage is poor treatment.

Fortunately baking a cake for a gay wedding does not require you to acknowledge it as a "valid and licit sacramental marriage". You just have to bake a cake and sell it to the customer. Similarly, you don't have to acknowledge that black people have a right to shop in the same stores as white people, you just have to sell to all customers regardless of race.

Exactly <points up>

 jasper76 wrote:
it doesn't seem to me that by asking for a cake for a gay wedding, the baker is being asked to acknowledge that a homosexual marriage is a "valid and licit sacramental marriage"

No one said it was. This is exactly why I did not want to humor your question.

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
My impression of the laws is that it protects vendors from providing goods or services to another person/group if that persons/group is not in accordance with their religious views.

Not even that. Anyone can attempt to break non-discrimination laws. But until they prove to a court that said laws violate their First Amendment rights, they are just breaking the law.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
it doesn't seem to me that by asking for a cake for a gay wedding, the baker is being asked to acknowledge that a homosexual marriage is a "valid and licit sacramental marriage"

No one said it was. This is exactly why I did not want to humor your question.

Well, I never said you were taking this position or anything, just asking what your position was. But obviously some people do feel like baking the proverbial cake enters them into a supernatural "Gay-OK" arrangement, otherwise, why are they pushing legislation to shield themselves from related business transactions?

Heh... saw a facebook post that said:

<gay lawyer>
Can America stop talking about the gheys for five minutes... I'm trying to get laid here.

 jasper76 wrote:
[...] otherwise, why are they pushing legislation to shield themselves from related business transactions?

Because there is a genuine religious liberty question that doesn't boil down to a single circumstance.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
[...] otherwise, why are they pushing legislation to shield themselves from related business transactions?

Because there is a genuine religious liberty question that doesn't boil down to a single circumstance.

OK, what is the nightmare scenario for proponents of this bill? What is the major threat they are seeking to defend themselves against with this kind of legislation?

Surely, we can't be talking about baking a wedding cake...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For real, would a laws like this satisfy the religious right:

"Noone can be compelled to personally participate in a religious ceremony against their will."
-and-
"Noone can be compelled to acknowledge the sanctity of a religious ceremony against their will."

Because if that's all you're after, sigm me up yesterday!!

 jasper76 wrote:
OK, what is the nightmare scenario for proponents of this bill?

The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.

 jasper76 wrote:
Because if that's all you're after, sigm me up right away!

Great, welcome to supporting the RFRA.

 Manchu wrote:
The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.

You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.

If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.

@jasper76: lemme try something.

You're an artist, and you want to display your great achievement at this specific art gallery.

Come to find out, the owner of this art gallery are Christian.

And they refused to display your artwork:


Who's in the right?

 jasper76 wrote:
You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.

It feels condescending to post but ... I'm afraid it's not that simple. Congress passed the RFRA in response to a change in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

 Manchu wrote:
Great, welcome to supporting the RFRA.

Hell no. The RFRA is WAAAAAAY too broad. The laws I just proposed are specific to religious ceremonies, NOT business transactions.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.

You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.

If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.

The thing you're missing jasper is that two opposing sides could have legitimate reasons.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.

It feels condescending to post but ... I'm afraid it's not that simple. Congress passed the RFRA in response to a change in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Don't even bother to give it a second thought. You established your condescending bona fides long, long ago, and I've hung with you in this conversation this long. You went to law school, so I forgive you.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The nightmare scenario is the violation of the First Amendment ... what we have been talking about for pages and pages. We have talked about HobbyLobby, we have talked about the Arizona wedding photographer ... all of this is preserved by the way, you can look back at it.

You don't need a new law to protect your First Amendment rights. If you are an American citizen, your First Amendment Rights are guaranteed.

If you want to amend the First Amendment to clarify it somehow, put your revision to the vote of\ the nation. Two-Thirds, IIRC must approve.

The thing you're missing jasper is that two opposing sides could have legitimate reasons.

Please explain what you mean, Whembly.