Slashdot Mirror
Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill
Grymalkin writes A controversial religious freedom bill has passed the Indianapolis Senate and is now awaiting Governor Mike Pence's signature to become law. Supporters claim that this bill will protect business owners from excessive government control while opponents argue it is just a veiled attempt to allow those same business owners to deny services to individuals because of their sexual orientation. Now, Gen Con has released a statement saying this bill will influence their decision to keep the convention in Indiana. This announcement has tourism officials worried as Gen Con brings in roughly 50,000 visitors each year, contributing $50 million to the local economy. So far Gen Con's announcement has not swayed the Governor who says he is looking forward to signing the bill into law. Gen Con currently has a contract with the Indy Convention Center through 2020. No word yet as to exactly when the convention would be moved should the bill become law.
Arizona was trying to attract conventions while enacting regressive policies
The conventions went elsewhere and Arizona changed the policies to bring them back
Voting with your pocketbook is a fundamental tenet of the free market
Wherever You Go, There You Are
No one should have to perform INVOLUNTARY SERVICE for anyone.
A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage". Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?
For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.
Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.
Corporatism != Free Market
Bring the convention to Toronto Canada, we don`t even have no fly lists, no Obama and our cops don`t shoot you - just give you a stern talking too.
c ya
Vote with your pocketbook.
Indianapolis resident here. Most of us who live here are not as dense as Governor Pence.
Please get the word out and help us to help him realize how much of a financial loss our state could suffer should Indiana become a place where discrimination is the legalized.
Put up or shut up. Instead of saying that the law will factor in to the decision making process, directly tell them that it will not be in Indianapolis or anywhere else in Indiana if the law is passed. Tell them that the law will automatically disqualify the city and state from consideration. And then follow through with it if not also try to get out of the existing contract should Pence sign the bill. Anything else is just an idle threat and won't be taken seriously.
They get their law passed and at the same time the perverts up and leave and take their toys with them. Go gov go
...sounds like Gen Con is looking for a way to leave Indianapolis while still looking like good guys.
Same as a business owner should have protection from not having to produce something for pedophilia if it is against their religion.
Here come the Gaystapo, the GayGB, and the Gay Mafia.
It would be really handy if the article mentioned what Gen Con even was. I had to go look it up.
My guess is that the good governor thinks AD&D players are Satan worshipers anyways...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
What does gaming have to do with wedding cakes. This whole thing has been a red herring anyway. The fact is, Gays are able to find a baker that will fulfill their needs. Why would gays want a baker that doesnt approve of their lifestyle anyway? There are plenty of bakers that will bake cakes for gay people and will be happy to take the business.
Do you ever hear Gen Con calling attention to the crimes and atrocities Islam where gays are executed, where a women can be punished severely for just fighting back against an attacker, where women cannot drive in some such countries, and the list goes on? Thats where the real human rights violation is. The liberals refuse to acknowledge or criticise the intrinsic nature of islam and Islamic doctrine as a religion of oppression, and even help Muslims cover up and continue to carry out their crimes, take money from islamic interests and have financial and monetary connections with Islamic regimes.
Having been to GenCon 7 times in Milwaukee and twice in Indy, Milwaukee is the better place for it. Cooler weather, cleaner city, Giordano's pizza, and The Side Door. One year in Milwaukee I was headed back to the hotel at 2am, and all of downtown was filled with the deafening roar of 250+ bikes starting their ride to Sturgis... probably can't get that anywhere else.
I hope there is some vague "business environment" clause in the contract between GenCon and the Convention Center that could be invoked to move GenCon elsewhere sooner than 2020. The economic impact will be welcome anywhere it goes, and bigotry like this shouldn't be rewarded. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill was partly aimed at GenCon attendees anyway.
Isn't it amazing how people who enjoy protection from being discriminated against want to use that same protection to allow them to discriminate against others?
Sorry, but if you think your religion should allow you to discriminate, you should be subject to the same thing.
Oh, what's that, your religion is a magic double standard which exempts you from logic and you are special? Go piss up a rope.
You're just as stupid as the people who want to force Sharia law on the rest of us. Stop pretending otherwise.
Your religion doesn't make you some special little flower who operates under a special set of rules.
"Asshole" is universal, no matter what you believe in.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The party that shouts freedom the most respects freedom the least.
....so I can't say for sure what's in it. However, as long as any business is not actively causing physical harm by refusing a good or service, they should have the right to do so. If this is a bill to codify that right, I'm ok with that.
The government derives it's power from the ability murder people, imprison them, or impose violence on them. As soon as discrimination cases can be brought against a business for refusing to transact with some group or individual, the government force an outcome under threat of violence. No business should be forced to perform a service for anyone (excluding exigent, life-threatening circumstances). Our laws need to reflect that.
I just wish religion wasn't the backbone for this law.
It will be sad to see GenCon migrate to Seattle, where it would be far more welcome than in Indianapolis. But the Indiana General Assembly's act of antagonism will cause a loss of customers and business, which should be enough cause for GenCon to claim breach of contract on the part of the Indianapolis Convention Bureau, even if it was not its fault. And the law itself will be litigated over. Lawsuits will be flying this summer in Indianapolis, not cosplayers flying to Indy.
--- Andy West http://andywest.org
Arkansas also has one of these Religious Freedom bills, as well as similar southern conservative cowboy type things, and I think this is a natural progression after years of voters being told by the conservative media that our elected conservatives weren't conservative enough, weren't religious enough, and too open to compromise with the left, and too slow to respond to issues regarding immigrants and terrorists. Add to that a general sense of failure or lack of inspiration in the left regarding their own leaders, and we leave a wide open door for this sort of thing.
I believe the response in Arkansas was the creation of a sticker that businesses began putting on their windows, saying that they welcome LGBT customers. This is where we are now... I suppose we should be thankful they haven't decided to simply force businesses to comply to "religious conscience" the way they're forcing universities to accept guns on their property.
You've clearly internalized too much wingnut media.
Religion is the root of hate and intolerance, if you look at what has been carried out in the name of religion, it's horrid. On the short list and in the front of any rational humans mind is Mother T, killing machine extraordinary and Hitler, both who took MILLIONS of lives in the name of the church.
Why bother mentioning this?
Well if you're going to claim that you need your religious beliefs protected and respected, then you better come to the table with one hell of an offer as to why. Religion is the reason that same sex marriage was even a question, it was the reason why we should be allowed to lie to children in a classroom, it's the reason why people are put to death because they believe differently, it's the reason why we have generalized hate.
If you want me respect your literally bat shit crazy religion beliefs then you have to provide me equal or greater evidence then I can provide you to the contrary. It's time to get rid of religion, it's the security blanket for the immature, irrational and illogical adult. It's the reason we have hate and intolerance and it teach kids and adult that giving up and giving in are perfectly acceptable even when your final answer is just WRONG.
You can put money on two things
- this will be used to deny service to blacks (safe bet, as it already has been).
- that will not go over well, in a burn the place down sort of way.
And, at that point, it will probably be thrown out in court or amended out of existence by the legislature.
If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.
Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ? Or Klansman entertainment.
Really ticks me off how the left has completely destroyed the meaning of words like freedom and liberty.
it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.
society cannot and will not have actual liberty when businesses and public-facing organizations are permitted to discriminate against people for who they are under the guise of "religious freedom" or "liberty." the very notion is abhorrent to an open democracy, and it amazes how the right uses mental gymnastics to reach the conclusions they have.
I hope all Cons pull out of states passing or considering RFRA legislation.
Including DragonCon in Georgia, which is also considering one:
http://www.peachpundit.com/201...
"If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
Bullshit.Seeing as you don't even know the meaning of the word
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
: a political right
You want to tell me how forcing anyone to provide service is compatible with that ?
When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.
He has a right to the Pursuit of Happiness. And what makes him happy is to operate a business as a bigoted twit.
(no, he doesn't have a Constitutional right to operate a business under and terms he chooses)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Owning a business does not imbue the owner(s) with the rights of feudal lords. A keystone principle of American society is that you can't discriminate by refusing to conduct business with others based on ideological differences. A great struggle over civil rights would seem to have settled this, but some throwbacks still want to impose un-American values on others. The Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution were founded on the principles of the Enlightenment. It is high time our citizenry got enlightened, as well.
Same shit, different decade. Bob Jones University in South Carolina tried this crap in the 50s and 60s, saying their policy of discriminating against blacks and Asians was a divinely ordained part of their religion. According to Bob Jones, the Bible clearly told him that blacks were inferior to whites. This is the same bullshit argument. It will fall in the courts, and it will fail in the marketplace. In the meantime, GenCon, and everyone else should avoid spending money in Indiana.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
So if someone you knew liked doing 12 year old boys, you'd be happy as punch to serve them eh?
If I were serving prison lunches, yes. If not, then I'd wonder why they aren't in prison.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
When you make decisions for yourself, you are exercising your freedom.
When you make decisions for someone else, you are not exercising your freedom, you are denying them their freedom to choose.
It's easy: you're as free as anyone to be as religious as you like.
If your religion wants you to do something illegal, though, you can't go and do it anyway, and passing a law saying you have to have religious freedom doesn't work.
If it did, then ISIS would just pass a law making it legal to behead people or burn them alive in cages and then you would have to accept that.
Hang on, ISIS DO say that it's a religious requirement! But I don't hear any proponents of the bill demanding that the world STFU and let these "Islamists" be free to pursue their religious obligations.
So how do you manage to square that circle?
The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.
Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.
Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.
That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.
The demand for rooms during GenCon allows Indianapolis hotels to charge $600-$800/night for a lousy $100/night room. I hope GenCon does leave, because Indiana is a shitty backwards state that's stuck in the 80's -- the 1880's. While Chicago is far more expensive than Indy, it's a lot friendlier city for people from different orientations or religious beliefs.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Yeah Baby, bring the party back home to where it belongs.
The ACLU, which is usually excoriated as leftist, if not out-and-out commies, has frequently defended the rights of both neonazis and the KKK to be as publicly obnoxious as they choose. Over the border in Illinois, these leftists defended the rights of a bunch of Nazis to parade through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie. Personally, I find GTA extremely objectionable, but I wouldn't keep them out of GenCon.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The dividing line should be weather or not the state is compelling speech, and if the speech portion of a business's product is what primarily differentiates that product in the market. Art is considered speech, and thus if your business produces a product that is differentiated in the market primarily by it's artistry, then you should be allowed to discriminate, even if it makes you an asshole. This would mean that wedding cake designers or wedding photographers should be able to refuse to design a cake or take photographs for any reason, however a company that sells cake ingredients or mass produced cakes, or a camera sales or rental company should not be allowed to discriminate.
This also means that we are now free to deny Christians service as a part of our pastafarian religion. Let's see them deal with that in a dignified manner.
As someone who blew $400 on nonrefundable plane tickets and another $90 on a four day Gencon pass, I hope this bill doesn't pass or is struck down before July. This year's Gencon will be my first con, and I'd hate to have it ruined by people boycotting it.
And you knew that even gay people eat cake, so you can't say this came as a shock, so if you can't do your job (bake cakes) DO NOT BE A BAKER.
Simple.
Nobody is FORCING you to take a job that serves people you don't agree with, so you can always just refuse those jobs.
If you own the business, nobody MAKES you run that business. Close it if you don't like the terms. If no businesses open up because they want freedom to be bigots if they're running it, then the free market of ideas will have all the money and profit moving to "less restrictive" regimes.
So don't whine that you're "forced" to serve gays or whoever, you're CHOOSING that job. Leave. You're 100% free to do that.
How is selling a CAKE "repulsive"?
The point is that the baker sells cakes ALL THE TIME. That is what the baker's business is about. Selling cakes.
But he refuses to sell a cake to person X because he does not like person X's race/creed/religion/etc. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
I suspect many of those nerdy white role players are actually queer as a three dollar bill.
I agree, and all that GenCon is doing is trying to employ their freedom to not associate with dicks.
How about the freedom to buy a wedding cake?
I don't like preachy Christians, so I don't have to supply a wheelchair to your mom? Hopefully the company downtown likes her and they only charge twice as much.
Businesses aren't government. At least, not yet.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
No we shouldn't. If you don't think you can operate a business AS A BUSINESS and not an extension of your internal ideology, then you are free NOT TO RUN A BUSINESS.
NOBODY forces you to run your business: leave. Get a job as a worker, live off state benefits, sell your stuff and live in a shack, doesn't matter.
Nobody forces you to associate with people, but if you take a job that requires you associate with people, THAT IS YOUR DECISION. You can't decide to take the "making money" bit and then wave off the "serve everyone" bit. It's a package deal. Don't like the associate with any customer requirement? Don't take the job of business owner.
An exception that just goes to prove the rule.
Bullshit.Seeing as you don't even know the meaning of the word
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to
: a political right
You want to tell me how forcing anyone to provide service is compatible with that ?
When you say freedom and liberty, you mean certain people have a license to force people to participate in activities they find repulsive.
and yet you don't even grasp that businesses having the ability to deny service to a particular group of people because the business owner does not like that person's sex or race or other fundamental part of their being is precisely denying those people their right in choosing what they want to do?
be self aware for at least ONE SECOND in your life. liberty is a TWO WAY STREET.
I can't help but notice that neither the summary nor the links actually say what the bill says. Instead, we get the TL;DR, left-wing interpretation of its effects. I'm guessing, through some quick searches, it's meant to prevent what happened to the baker who had to shut down because while he had served many gay people in the past (supposedly; I don't tend to announce my sexual orientation before buying pastries) but refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Constitution is meant to restrict the government, not the people. People are always going to do things, in business and society, that you dislike. This is not about "Jim Crow" segregation that was institutionalized by the government. I'm not sure how far we can restrict people's right to freely associate before we realize we've gone too far. Maybe it will be once Westboro Baptist demands a "God Hates Fags" float in a gay pride parade.
"-1, Troll" doesn't mean, "-1, I disagree".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
People like you are why the Libertarians will never get more than 1% of the vote.
The Libertarian party has a lot of good ideas, and it would be great if a few of them got elected, so their voices could be heard. But that will not happen if you continue to get hung up on stupid ideological arguments that you can't possibly win. We are not going to bring back Jim Crow in the name of ideological purity, and you alienate a lot of reasonable people when you advocate that. Learn to pick your battles.
Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
So they're taking the moral high ground with extortion? Yeah, that doesn't seem right.
Well my mom is dead and was Jewish while alive. So not only are you a bigot and a statist, you're also not particularly adept.
While I would never try to take away your right to be an idiot, I would gladly open a business capitalizing on your idiocy. Of course where I live the Cubans have pretty much cornered the market on providing medical services to dead jews.
General Convolution?
Genetic Construction?
Genital Convulsion?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The freedom to be a dick is exactly what liberty is all about.
Do you think freedom of speech means you're allowed to write a letter to your grandmother? No, it means you can say controversial and offensive things without fear of government retribution.
Freedom isn't a word that's supposed to make everyone happy all the time. Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression.
That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions, but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system, it's one that allows people to believe what they want and behave as they like, as long as they don't physically hard other people.
as an individual, yes, you can associate with whomever you want or don't want, and you can hold racist or sexist or whatever beliefs until you're the head of the Duck Dynasty or the KKK.
that question is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from that of public-facing businesses and organizations. if you permit such organizations to deny service to people based on who those persons fundamentally are (ex: race, sex, gender, etc.), you no longer have a free society. you have segregation and the Jim Crow south. you have modern-day Russia where gay persons are persecuted on a daily basis.
when you speak of "freedom" and "liberty", do you really mean that all people should have access to freedom and liberty? because permitting businesses to deny services to some simply results in "freedom" and "liberty" for a select few, which is in reality not liberty or freedom at all.
Indiana sucks anyway. :)
I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
That's not how any of this works. Minorities exist at the mercy of the majority, which is why it's in the minority's interest to teach mercy by standing up and suffering in clear view of everyone. You can chose to ignore those lessons or even act in spite of them as Indiana is doing, but in no case are you oppressed by the minority.
That said, I have no strong spirtual compass and no real courage. If the civic standard were to change such that it would be in my best interest to hide my sexual orientation, and I could not escape that environment, I would hide my orientation. I have a lot to live for, and a lot of skill, and I won't risk my earning potential for anything, even love. I might live a lie, seek a wife, and go to church just to avoid conflict and protect my career interests. My freedom really hinges on the work of more courageous people.... I'm so cowardly that sometimes I wonder if I'd have an easier time in Iran, where being open could mean death. The answer for what I should do would suddenly become simple. But here in America you can be open, but the potential consequences depend entirely people and locations.
Which was until the mid-19th century NOT A CHURCH SERVICE.
That's right, boys, the church did not demand to become the sole supplier of marriage ceremonies until the mid 1800's. This is, of course, the UK. For those living in the USA, you will need to find out what the American Indian rites were for marriage.
You ever said what "traditional" means? Because if it's supposed to be "according to what *I* consider traditional", then since you're not the one doing the marrying, your decision on what is "real marriage" is not relevant: the ones of the people getting married are.
Oh, you also need to stop demonising Allah for paedophilia: traditionally, even in Christian countries at the time and for hundreds of years after, powerful people had marriages to pre-pubescent girls. It was to cement political/religous relationships. It's a "real marriage" too, so stop complaining about it.
Oh, and what if ISIS moved in? What would they be allowed to do under these religious freedom laws? How about Davidians, for a home-brew version?
Doesn't GenCon have just as much right to express who (and where) it wants to do business with that the businesses who want to discriminate do? If the state is going to put it into law that a business can object to doing business with someone who goes against their religion, why can't GenCon say we choose not to do business with the state?
It probably won't affect you too much, but add Alcoa, Eli Lilly, Cummins, and Sales Force to the list of companies who won't ever patronize because they all wrote similar letters to the governor.
Yes because there is only one person in the world that knows how to do any particular thing. And no one has any choice. / sarcasm
We happily host PAX East every year; we've got a giant convention center and a lot of downtown hotels, which would provide more space than the current gencon location, and we're a very welcoming place for all types of people :)
I wouldn't mind Toronto, too, it's a good place to visit, and not too bad a drive from here. Does Toronto have a good convention center for big events?
Apparently, wedding photographs will be forced to work at gay weddings even if it's against their beliefs/choice.
Shall we force them to work at polygamist weddings as well?
Nudist?
S&M?
Bestiality?
I think a distinction needs to be made between walk-in businesses and for-contract/hire businesses. A gay person walks into a super market to buy a cake. There's no problem there. A gay person tries to force a religious photographer to photograph their wedding. Problem. Right on the face of it, not all photographers photograph everything (some do porn, others don't; some are nature photographers; and so on). Another problem is they might deliberately do a bad job (might be tough to prove).
Maybe someone should sue a female prostitute for not providing services to straight women? (All right, a lot prostitutes out there would do it for the money, but there's got to be a few out there disgusted by lesbian sex. A better example might be paying a prostitute to fuck a dog. Few takers then, I bet.)
Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom
That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.
While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
Sorry, that argument went the way of the dodos fifty years ago with the Civil Rights Act. If a business is open to the public, it has to be open *to the public*. Its called being a Public Accommodation.
Consider, for instance, if a town has only one grocery store. If that grocery store owner decides he doesn't want to serve black people, then that one owner can effectively make that community neigh on impossible to live in for black people.
Your freedom doesn't extend to exerting control over other people. Withholding a service offered to the public is a kind of control (as is getting between doctors and their patients in making healthcare decisions).
If they had to accommodate groups they found objectionable.
Have they actually denied participation to anyone?
Lets say 4th Reich games wanted a booth at the convention ?
Or Klansman entertainment.
Neither of those organizations exist. Do you have a better example?
Doesn't GenCon have just as much right to express who (and where) it wants to do business with that the businesses who want to discriminate do?
Absolutely, they have the right to take the convention anywhere they want that will have them.
And I have the right to never attend GenCon again.
HOWEVER those that support GenCon's position must logically also accept that as an FLGS owner I could be forced to do business with GenCon, and that is NOT freedom. I have the right to do business with whom I please, and not make a profit on those I refuse. It is my loss and my choice.
That means $1,000 per visitor. Seems a reasonable calculation.
Re next comment; I think the sexual oriantation of a person does not make a person any more or less valuable, but I do find this notion that because someone has a problem with homosexuality does not mean they have a fobia. That card is being played waay too much.
So, you have signs in our FLGS telling *everybody* who you don't want to do business with? Or is it a surprise - a black guy tries to buy a game and you say "no thanks, go somewhere else." Or is it just queers who you think shouldn't be able to play games? In any event, own your bigotry. Put a giant sign in your window telling everybody what sort of bigotry you practice. Without that knowledge, you're wanting the invisible hand of the market to do its magic while simultaneously deceiving people by your lack of transparency. Which makes you a cheating, devious asshole.
Own your bigotry! Make sure all your customers know who they're doing business with. Tell all your customers you don't serve queers. That's the only way the rest of us know to avoid your hateful, misanthropic business.
Yes because there is only one person in the world that knows how to do any particular thing. And no one has any choice. / sarcasm
your response is "the free market provides"? really?
sorry, but the U.S. has pretty strong evidence already that this won't work. as in, the entire period of segregation and Jim Crow discrimination in the South. try again.
I think the price is you don't get a business license.
The main thing you seem to misunderstood is that the US Constitution restricts what the government can do, but also ALLOWS the government to do certain things. Things like shutting down a business that refuses to serve black people, Jews, or gay people, etc.
But most importantly, you are mis-stating the problem. What is going on here is a bunch of prejudiced people are insisting they have certain rights when they do NOT have that rights. Religious rights are the rights to worship as you wish, they do NOT have the right to do engage in business as they wish. You can't go around claiming that your religion gives you the right to chop people's heads off.
In this particular case, the reach is EXTREME. The religion they claim to worship has no clear and concise ruling for homosexuality. It certainly does NOT mention selling anything to gays, let alone wedding related gear. The religious duty they claim is unwritten, just a matter of personal beliefs that is NOT shared by the majority of people that have that religion. They have not issued a re-written bible, clearly stating their claim. If you won't re-write your holy book to add your so called religious duty, then either you are not serious about the claim or you are not serious about your religion. On top of that, no such claim among Protestants was made until AFTER the law was passed (although one of the ancient roman Christian Emperors did outlaw gay marriages and murdered existing couples). It's not something protestants have been doing since Martin nailed his notice to the door, nor do modern Catholics allow it. Their claim for 'religious' is highly suspect.
But most importantly, this so called religious right violates laws that were not designed or written to oppress the religious people. It is legal to outlaw beheading and cocaine and you can't use "religious right" to over-ride that law. You can only use 'religious right" to over-ride a law that does not make reasonable exceptions.
The reasonable exception for a gay wedding is to sell the cake, but refuse to do an inscription and refuse to sell a cake topper with two men/women.
These idiots don't want to do that, they refuse to be reasonable. They want the right to refuse to sell a cake that looks like a wedding cake to someone that is gay because they MIGHT possibly use it as a wedding cake.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If GenCon moves because of this bill, I will make it a point not to attend GenCon.
I'm not religious, and I value gay rights. But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.
If you respect the right of gay people to choose who to marry, why not respect the rights of others to choose who the associate with also.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh ?
from their exhibitor agreement
http://files.gencon.com/2013Ap...
6. No exhibitor or member of an exhibit may promote, display, or behave in a manner considered
offensive to decency or good taste as determined by Show
Management
Seems to me they reserve the right to arbitrarily deny access.
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy remains a fallacy.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I didn't even know that Gen Con still existed.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
It scares me that this is happening. In what screwed-up version of the world do we need to even be thinking about laws that force people to serve others if they don't want to, or force people to put up with being denied service? Is it seriously so messed up in America that we need to legislate on things like basic human decency? Why is this even a debate? If someone has a really strong moral reasoning that says they don't want to do something, then fine - examples of forcing a muslim baker to make a cake for a gay wedding have already been suggested here; they have a right to stick to their own principles (but, similarly, they must be open to the fact that it isn't going to make them popular). Why do we ridicule someone for having principles (or feel we need to sue and/or legislate), even if we disagree with those principles? But at the same time, why are people so stuck up that they refuse someone based on reasons that have nothing to do with their being a customer? The fact that we even have to consider legislating on things like "don't refuse service someone you don't like" suggests our society has fundamentally failed.
I think the law is too blunt a tool for this: it is much more something that needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. On the one hand, I could see that a Christian minister shouldn't be forced to preside over a gay wedding if he disagrees with it - regardless of if you think he's right, it's bonkers to suggest that we should have to force someone to perform a service that disagrees with their basic beliefs. That's just rude, if nothing else (and, why would you want someone involved in a special occasion who is only there because you forced him to be and he had no legitimate way to say no - if a minister can say "I don't feel I'm suitable" to a straight couple, then surely they could say that to a same-sex couple as well, without fear of being sued?). But, at the same time, nowhere can I see it being ok for a restaurant owner to refuse two guys to have a table together because he thinks they look homosexual, or a bus driver refuse two women because he saw them kissing at the bus stop, or because of the colour of one's skin. Surely there is a balance in here somewhere? Or are we so screwed up that our only way to find solutions now is by getting lawyers and/or the government involved?
I think a person is allowed to hold an opinion, regardless of how repulsive we think that opinion is (and as long as they're ok with us telling them that we think it's repulsive), but at the same time, whatever happened to serving one's fellow man (or woman) - I'm pretty sure most religions have had kindness to others as a basic tenet for centuries?
To me, this whole debate seems to signal the end of common human decency... :-(
If I run a business, I can refuse to serve people based on their conduct in my establishment, or for failure to follow non-discriminatory rules.
For instance, I can specify that there will be no public sexual activity in my bakery, and I would likely be well within my rights to kick out anyone who breaks that rule, whether they're gay, straight, or "American Pie" reenactors.
I could likewise make a rule against trying to incite violence or hate, and I'd probably be in the clear to eject anyone that was doing so, since I'm banning conduct - and particularly conduct that is disruptive to my business and my other customers. I could probably be sued over it, depending on how I enforced it, but I'd have a reasonable leg to stand on in court.
So yes - I expect GenCon would be perfectly fine if you wanted to do something like come and play some games of Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_and_Decline_of_the_Third_Reich). You might even be able to run a game about the Holocaust like Brenda Romero's "Train" ( http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/11/brenda-romero-train-board-game-holocaust/ ) so long as it's about illustrating/teaching a point, and not celebrating or making light of such a horrific subject.
But if you cross a line beyond which most people would say it's objectionable content - well, that's a different story. In that case, those groups would be banned not because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, but because of what they're trying to do there. See the difference?
Privacy is gone. Safety will soon follow.
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/midland_lawmaker_planet_fitnes.html
You mean it has evidence that guys riding around in white robes killing anyone not going along with their views, and elected officials actively shutting down any business that would try to go against the flow makes it impossible for the free market to work.
Your problem is you don't understand how much you don't know.
I sqay we let places discriminate then we can see who to not do business with. Surely it'd be better to know who to avoid than to do business with a secretive bigot.
...
Sorry your shit does stink.
http://www.rpg.net/columns/des...
Gen Con has banned games because they didn't care for the content, didn't care for what they felt they promoted, didn't like what they portrayed.
You mean it has evidence that guys riding around in white robes killing anyone not going along with their views, and elected officials actively shutting down any business that would try to go against the flow makes it impossible for the free market to work.
Your problem is you don't understand how much you don't know.
do you...do you not know basic history? like, how businesses in the South used to deny service to blacks based on "personal beliefs"? or how public facilities used to have segregated buildings, where the sides meant for black persons almost always ended up being inferior or dangerous? are you posting from the U.S.? am i making a huge assumption that people still receive basic education in history?
i'm sorry, but the only one showing a dangerous lack of basic knowledge here is you.
Dictionary definitions are basically irrelevant when it comes to determining what's legal. If it were as simple as looking it up in the dictionary, we wouldn't need lawyers or the legal system. The reason we _do_ have those things is that ethical questions are never so cut and dry. The ideas of "freedom" and "liberty" are defined by the long history of legal precedent.
Heh...that'd be...SENSIBLE and SANE. No, none of THAT allowed here, no...
I operate when I post that people aren't living under rocks with no contact with the outside world.
So while some portions of the left may still support free speech. Overwhelmingly they no longer do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I've always maintained, since I grew up there, that Ohio specifically and the Midwest generally is a good place to be from.
Now you are demonstrating that you are illiterate as well. Read what I wrote and come back when you can demonstrate the ability to parse a paragraph.
How about New Belgium Brewing considering political affiliation for hiring employees?
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2012/10/18/cultural-fit-colorado-based-brewery-screens-job-candidates-on-politics/
it is one thing for a vendor to not provide services to same sex ceremonies. It is a different thing for a vendor to not provide services that has nothing to do with a same sex union such as the convention.
The CON is trying to enforce an agenda on people who object to same sex marriage.
alright, i'm out. my reading comp is fine. the issue is you're not even debating the point anymore, you're relying on strawmen that don't even address the issue.
Really just out of curiosity how did he find out what the cake was for ?
At no point was the baker denying service to the person, they were not willing to participate in a function.
Good for you. Like the AC my mother has also passed away. I doubt she needs your services.
Who spams every article with this off-topic sewage.
No the reason we have legal definitions, is so that the system can be manipulated.
I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems to me that you're misconstruing something.
Believing in the right to be an asshole does not mean that one agrees with the asshole. I feel that the famous Cake Incident shouldn't have been an incident at all. To me, the company has the right to refuse service. I disagree with what they're doing, but support their right to do it (and go out of business).
Same with flag burning. I think it is disrespectful, but people should be allowed to do it. Want to make blog posts supporting ISIL? Go for it. You're a dick, but you're free to do it.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association, etc., none of these include the freedom from being offended.
It works both ways, you know: If a business is being a dick, then the customer who has been denied, and everyone else, has the right to say, "Wow, that business is full of assholes, don't go there."
You might see this as being rather idealistic, and you very well may be correct, but I would rather try the ideal route and allow the highest freedom for the individual as possible, then see what happens.
Remember, this is just a state law. It can be repealed. It isn't set in stone, it isn't the end of the world. We should always be willing to try something new, or something older in a new context. Maybe it will work out well and maybe it won't, but the people of that state should have the right to make that decision. If it backfires, well, too bad.
I hope some of this made sense. I'm replying to you because you seem less ANGRY than a lot of the other people here today and there might be some good discussion. We don't have to agree on everything, and we don't, but that's okay, but being able to find some common ground would be nice.
Love sees no species.
I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
Well, if you're going to play the Tyranny of the Minority card, let me counter by playing the Tyranny of small decisions card.
Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
Yeah, that's never been abused before...
And for the love of God try to pronounce Ayn Rand's name right in your next rant
Is it anything like "Ayn Volk, Ayn Reich"?
nobody's forcing the baker to participate in any function other than baking a cake.
Owning a business does not imbue the owner(s) with the rights of feudal lords.
Small business owners, no of course not. Same with large business owners. They are more like dukes or princes, squashing the unwashed masses beneath their corporate stallions.
You will be very unhappy with that line of reasoning if you think it through to its logical conclusion.
A keystone principle of American society is that you can't discriminate by refusing to conduct business with others based on ideological differences.
Of course you can. You are prohibited from discriminating against members of a protected class (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class) due to their membership in the aforementioned protected class... but you can refuse to do business with them for any reason other than their membership in the protected class. You are not required to provide services to anyone.
Instead of working with someone in your own community, you spew hate.
Wrong what more is there to say.
He is being forced to cater the wedding and in general participate in something he would for whatever reason rather not participate in.
Why would business owners to deny services to individuals because of their sexual orientation? I thought business owners run business to earn money? How would business owners identify individual's sexual orientation? Are they going to ask their customers? Who cares if an individual is gay or transgender? The year is 2015 for crying out loud.
Okay, but a duke or a prince is the lord of his fiefdom, feudally speaking. .
There's no such thing as "homophobia" ... an irrational fear of sameness
It's just a political slogan with as much legitimacy as 911 trutherism (none)
The fact that some little boys (2% of them?) never grew up and got over the "ewwww, girls are icky and have cooties" stage dose not mean that all of society needs to redefine "right" and "wrong" to meet their narccisstic demands. SOME people shoose to rob banks - we do not need to have society decide that robbing banks is now ok - it's still "wrong" (even if bank robbers have "always felt like" bank robbers and never felt inclined to earn an honest living.
Freedom does NOT just mean perverts get to try to push their proclivities into the public forum, it ALSO means that civilized adults get to push back. The emporer may chhose to stride through the town naked like a gay guy in a Folsom st parade, but the normal kid on the sideline also gets to point at him an laugh and point out that he's naked (no matter how many other people have been intimidated into pretending the guy is wearing something fabulous. Oh, and don't even START trying to pretend that being a black man is the same as being a sexual deviant.
Don't like people resisting the pro-pervert messages? Tough luck. It's called "freedom". If you insist we are all free to advocate things, and most-particularly unpopular ones (as the gays insisted in the 60s and 70s when society had not yet caved-in on this toxic garbage) than you have no right to try to suppress your opponents. Wanna blacklist businesses, employees, and communities that are not "pro-gay"? OK, then you have no right to complain when straight people begin firing and boycotting gays and gay-friendly businesses and communities. "Tolerance" is a two-way street, and it's NOT the same thing as forcing people to accept one side.
"How about the freedom to buy a wedding cake?"
What you mean is: how about the freedom to force someone else to make a wedding cake so that I can then buy it from them. You possess no such freedom. Nor should you.
So the KKK can force a black or Jewish printer to print posters for their next rally, then?
If you answer no, you agree with the govenrnor of Indianapolis. If you answer yes, you're in favour of slavery (forcing the printer to serve against their will). Pick one.
Any business can reject customers already.
So, that imaginary Jewish printer can reject that imaginary KKK customer - RIGHT NOW.
It is their right as a business - not accepting to do a job they don't want.
What that imaginary Jewish printer can't do at this point, is pull a "religious discrimination/freedom" card should KKK complain about being discriminated for being KKK.
And as that is SO gonna happen - both that false dichotomy of yours AND that strawman... they kinda stink.
Back in the real world, this law is a license for being a dick to ANYONE (not just customers).
And should they complain one can just pull a religious script out of one's ass, with a highlighted passage which vaguely kinda gives one an excuse for being a dick.
Because religion.
At which point government (i.e. police and courts) just shrug their shoulders and go "What can we do? Religion." and may end up paying damages to the "person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened" - i.e. the penis in fabula.
But since you like the idea of Semitic examples so much...
This law allows your Muslim neighbor to call to prayer 5 times a day as loud as possible, or to perform any other religious ceremony including but not limited to slaughtering live cows, goats and sheep in their driveway or on their balcony.
And you have no one to complain to anymore.
Your boss can fire you on "religious grounds", you can get evicted for the same reason, your bank account can be charged "additional services" on account of you being a filthy unbeliever...
And boy are your female members of the family in for a surprise when they start getting pestered by men unless they are wearing a burka and are in a company of another man.
Ain't no such thing as sexual harassment in the "holy books" - but there's plenty rules on how women should act in public and at home.
Also, how long until Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses figure out that they can just camp in front of your door 24/7 cause you can't call cops on them anymore?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Actually, you may be doing the feudal masters a bit of a disservice. While the feudal serf was his master's property, the lord of the fiefdom generally treated his serfs better than the industrialists who followed. It was common for the lord to provide his serfs free health care and several times more time off than even today's corporations provide their workers. Many of the common beliefs about feudal life are misconceptions bred by the industrialists to keep their workers complacent: "You have it so much better, now that I'm in charge," essentially. If you'd like to learn more I can recommend the series of videos named "Medieval Lives" with Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame.
Skin color is genetic. Sexual proclivities are not.
Racism is irrational and tied to a person's immutable genetics. Opposition to perverts is not the same thing at all. There are many great legitimate reasons for opposing a toxic lifestyle choice that has killed millions and damaged millions more (see: HIV, Tuberculosis (which HAD been eliminated in the US before HIV patients re-introduced it), and numerous STDs that are at very high numbers in the "gay community" relative to normal people).
There is no proof that "being gay" is biological - the "gay gene" was a creative political lie pushed by gay activists in the 80's to try to convince the public that gays were sympathetic victims of a condition who "couldn't help it" rather that perverts. The propaganda worked really well - until people started to talk about genetic tests and the possibility of editing genes in emryos, or abortions based on genetics, or employers doing genetic screening as part of healthcare. All the talk of a "gay gene" faded away.
Twins studies also show that "being gay" is not genetic. Of course, David Bowie and Mick Jagger apparently could have told you that.
Just get out of the closet and admit it - it's a choice to "be gay". Sure, there are personal preferences you cannot fully explain just as people have preferences for pizza toppings, but it's not a hard-wired biological thing like eye color or skin color; if it was then there would not be so many people who "come out" as gay and then go back to being "straight", or who are straight for many decades and then decide they are "Gay", or "Bi", etc. A black woman cannot suddeny "come out" as a white woman. A Brown-eyed man cannot suddenly "come out" as a blue-eyed man. Biological differences are not equivalent to mental disorders, or lifestyle choices.
Take off your white hoods and stop trying to terrorize normal people with your pro-pervert campaign. Your bigotry against normal people is not acceptable in civilized circles.
So, the law only protects "protected groups" ... now, the supreme law of the land, the constitution, cites religion and color as protected groups. However, the militant activists have decided to shit on that to create a higher category of laws.
As for a specific example, it was completely legal for the Ob Gyn certified board to prohibit licensed Ob's from treating men; they only caved to social pressure. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/health/responding-to-critics-gynecology-board-reverses-ban-on-treating-male-patients.html?_r=0 However, it's blatantly illegal to do the same against women or ethnic minorities.
So, shove it. There's a blatant example. It's completely legal to force people, in the US, to do something that violates their religios beliefs even though the constitution says that there shall be no law regarding religion, nor exercising the free exercise thereof. The constitution is shat upon, and people are enraged when a state tries to protect it's citizen against blatant examples of people being forced to support something they find reprehensible.
all the deviants (no desire to conjure up the current alphabet-soup of politically-popular perversion codes) want to enjoy protection from being descriminated against for THEIR beliefs/preferences while demanding their opponents get descriminated against so severely that they lose their jobs and have their businesses destroyed.
hmmmmm....
Time to start firing queers and destroying their businesses. I think somebody is outnumbered here and really ought to think this form of warfare through a bit more before the movement transitions any more from "we want to be tolerated" to "we demand the death of those who will not endorse us". Gays, Bisexuals, etc will never be more that a couple percent of the population, and by these tactice risk a never-ending fight that any new generation could easily reverse. Hell, even a simple apparently unrelated event, like the possibly impending failure of vaccines, could tip the scales against something as hazardous to the public health among the vast public.
Holy shit, a rational argument. I thought I was on slashdot.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Its religiously inconcistent is my problem. God condems homosexuals, but their born that way. so I believe that god occaisionally creates those whose purpose is to suffer in futility and ultimately burn in hell... anyone who helps them deserves the same fate. And yes, not following biblical obligations is helping them... only good gay is a dead one.
This is a humen fact. I guess some allowsance can be made for those gays who deny their nature after all were all sinful their just very so... So if they can keep from sinning, maybe when they die jesus can burn their wickedness out of them or at least i hope.
Anyway, this law should pass and I hope that those leftist fuckers die in a fire. Sins is sin and god made it for a reason. It is only christian to want to destroy it...
~Bobby Ross
First, those few (generally southern) who tried to claim the Bible endorsed racism had no actual Biblical texts to point to - they pretended their position was supported by scripture. The reason the vast majority of Christians in the US did NOT agree with those preachers in the Democrat-run former slave states is that those preachers "interpreted" their Bibles like most Democrats "interpret" the Constitution - liberally (imagining it says whatever they want it to say).
The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is, however, quite explicit, in BOTH the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament". No amount of pro-gay "talking points" can change the facts for anybody who chooses to actually go read a Bible instead of just being spoon-fed a political argument by one side or the other.
As a result, when government forced people to de-segregate, it WAS NOT ordering people to violate their religion (actually, it was in a sense ordering them to OBEY it) but when it orders people to endorse/support homosexuality it IS ordering them to violate their religion. Nine people in robes can indeed pretend to do this, but like Roe v. Wade, they will NOT end the argument - they'll only further de-legitimize the court whish has over the decades veered further and further from the plain text of the Constitution (which explicitly guarantees religious freedom but says NOTHING about homosexuality).
If the posters are filled with hate speech, the printer can refuse to print racist material the same way that moderators across the Internet have the right to not publish racist comments. If the posters contain nothing more than dates and times for their rally, then the printer is obligated to comply with the rules of the economic system in which s/he operates. They aren't a slave to anything. They chose to run a business in this country and the rules are the rules. Sometimes you don't like the person who shows up at your business. Adults who aren't hate-filled racists and creedists would just deal with the situation. There is no "slavery" (hey, fun word choice by you!!! Accidental, for sure!) in there at all.
Racists and creedists, on the other hand, will use the power to discriminate. They've been repressed for so long and will be very thankful to be able to once again say things like, "We don't serve your kind in here!" That would be progress to bigots... and it's progress ONLY to bigots.
being black is not equivalent to being a pervert
The (idiotic) way you're attempting to use that phrase demonstrates that you don't have a clue what it actually means. Here's an actual example: a sign saying "service animals allowed". There is no accompanying sign saying that non-service animals are disallowed; it is implied by the fact that you mentioned an exception. The exception (allowing service animals) proves that the rule (animals disallowed) exists otherwise.
What rule is implied by the fact that the ACLU defends freedom of all non-harmful expression?
You don't get to use the magical phrase "exception that proves the rule" as a fully general argument for why counterexamples to your bullshit are actually supporting it. That makes no logical sense and isn't what the phrase means. Go put on the dunce cap and sit in a corner.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
"The exception that proves the rule" is used when an exception to a generally accepted truth is discovered. This is an old fashioned use of the word 'prove', which means 'to test'. It does not mean it proves a rule is true, but that it tests the rule.
In this case, that you can find a few examples of the left actually supporting free speech amongst the sea of examples of their suppression is exactly what is meant.
The bill passed the Indiana Senate, as a resident of the city of Indianapolis, we'd prefer not to be lumped into the martians that surround our fair city.
People bring up the Jim Crow south all the time when talking about this. It's interesting to note that Jim Crow was not private enterprise being discriminatory, it was government discrimination. The reality is as long as you ensure individuals are free, discrimination by businesses is minimal, and dies out over time. There is no evidence that suggests government policies in any way improve or expedite this. In fast, the opposite has been true historically, as you pointed out with the Jim Crow laws.
Exactly.
Two points:
1) the religious freedom bill isn't about "no gays allowed," it's about allowing a pastor to say "I only perform Christian marriages" without being sued for not presiding over a gay wedding where the couple getting married are Christian and unapologetic sinners.
2) GenCon can go screw itself. The Future Farmers of America bring more business to non-bars with their convention, and they aren't a gaming convention hostile to gaming like GenCon. Go back to Lake Geneva and learn about gamers again, GenCon.
P.S. GenCon is only hurting businesses in downtown Indy that all have "gays welcome here" signs in the window as protest. These are the businesses that GenCon attendees frequent.
To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. :D
..except of course that conventions are BY DEFINITION A PRIVATE EVENT. Speaking as a former convention organizer, that's why they are held at hotels, convention centres, etc as by renting the space they are allowed to impose their own regulations for the duration of the lease. Also the reason why you pay an admission fee- they aren't 'open to the public' because by paying an entry fee, you enter a legal contract to accept their private entry and registration rules. It also means they can eject you from the site when you become an unruly, violent asshole.
This.
My country protects speech, it does not protect hate speech however. I'm not even sure the US would protect hate speech as an inalienable right.
If the KKK or ISIS came into your print shop and asked for some hate speech to be printed up, you'd be within your rights to refuse the job because the job is borderline illegal and distasteful, beyond this, it's also harmful to your business. Its a similar story if someone asked you to print off a large quantity of their own hardcore pornography. The porn is legal, the job is legal, but you do not want your business to become known as a purveyor of adult literature because that would scare away many customers.
Whilst it's not illegal for people to be arseholes, there is no law stating that we have to facilitate their ability to be arseholes.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If your business is "open to the public", then you have to serve the public. Period.
No Shirt No Shoes No Service.
Exclamation Mark.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
not abortions, being covered as mandated by the ACA. And before the ACA passed, the insurance Hobby Lobby offered to their employees covered contraception, and it didn't seem to bother anybody's religious convictions. Strange, that.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
The struggle over civil rights was mostly a struggle over race discrimination, and you are equating that with "ideological differences." Grow a brain.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Unlike all other translations of the Bible which contain statements such as "Judge not that the be not judged." there are lunatic christians whose Bible seems to read Judgement is not mine sayeth the Lord but judgement belongs to the people in order to abuse them and offend God, the Father. And their Bible must also say to try to harm darker skinned people in any way possible. It does make me wonder how people can claim to be Christians while practicing hate and judging others all day, every day. These people might better be called Satan's little helpers.
Well you may classify me/my business as a misanthrope/ic, wrongly, but at least I am able to read and not make strawman arguments.
I am well known in my community, I am known to not only treat people fairly, but go out of my way to help people. But I am also known for being very rigid in my beliefs. I help a lot, but yes I do ask people to leave my store, not my flgs, because had you the brain of a mosquito you would have noticed I was the owner of an flgs, that is past tense. I signed my post with good reason and stand by it.
As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon
I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.
People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
To those who modded me as a troll, I am aware you do not know what trolling is. I expressed a dissenting opinion, and you chose to bury it rather than respond. You are cowards.
I stand by my right to chose what business I do. If you do not want to do business with me, that is fine, but I have the legal right, as does any closely held company in the US to do business within my religious parameters. The US Supreme Court has already backed up that opinion. Feel free to boycott me, I am good at what I do and my skills are in more demand than I can reply to anyways, and I could retire now should I want to. I will stand by my freedom.
You dislike me, you feel I am a bigot and misanthrope, why would you want to give me your money to begin with? Further were the shoe on the other foot, do you want the government telling you that you must do business with me? I did not think so.
You are full of vitriol and shame, I am full of neither.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
What's wrong with discouraging homosexual activities? Homosexual acts are wrong, aren't they?
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
This is about gays targeting Christians. Right?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Every attendee drops $1,000 on Gen Con in the LOCAL economy? PLUS the money they spend at the vendors that come in from out of state, PLUS the money they spend on airfare getting to/from Gen Con?
Ken
t really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.
Actually, advocating for someone to be able to voice/be what they think, even if we find it abhorrent, is kind of great. Even if we find it makes us uncomfortable. The fact that you're using words like *disgusting* points to the parts of the brain being activated by the argument.
Good laws (and I am not including the one under discussion in this) don't come out of emotion, they come out of thinking through unintended consequences for *everyone*, even those we find disgusting, because if it protects those we find disgusting it's likely to protect us.
It's a weird area created where someone not wanting to photograph a gay wedding, or rent out their form for a gay wedding, is condemned. However, when a guy is ousted from Firefox because he happens not to like gay marraige, a bunch of people on the other side applaud. When a gay hair dresser turns away New Mexico governor Susana Martinez because of her stance on gay marraige, there's a bunch of applause. Both have real heartfelt issues for why they take their stand.
It isn't intellectually sound to applaud/ignore one side while condemning the other, as the only real difference is that you might consider yourself part of one camp or the other. And the best laws protect things you might find disgusting because they also best protect *you*.
We can argue how about more thought-examples that haven't happened yet ("Hey Mr. asian printer, please print my flyers about how asians are taking over my city! Since I'm a woman/black/disabled and a protected class, if you don't I'll sue."), but do we really need to? I'm not for the law as we aren't entitled to never hear or see things we don't like. That includes the people you're talking about: but it goes both ways, and by Yaweh the gay hair dresser should be sued into oblivion.
groups they found objectionable
Women?
You misunderstand. Certainly, you have a right to choose what business you do. You being modded down is people telling you that you're a bigot and you're not welcome here. There's no point in responding because there's no discussion to be had here. I'm sure you're busy preparing for the next KKK rally, anyway.
Did you even bother to look at the two games I linked?
Did you bother to read what I wrote?
Gen Con can absolutely set rules for what sort of content can be presented, or what constitutes appropriate attire for the convention, just like any other business can.
What they can't do is discriminate solely on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Have they done any of that? No? I didn't think so.
groups they found objectionable
Women?
Rofl and thanks. Good to see the internet hasn't completely been colonized by poster children for abortion.
Surely if it was a "keystone principle" - it would have been there from the beginning, not something that had come in less than half a century ago
I would start a business that exclusively excludes Christians. Doesn't matter what it did, if there's even a sniff that you're a Christian, even a moderate ok one that doesn't talk about faith at all, then you can fuck off. Freedom works both ways.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-n...
It isn't that they would refuse all service to a gay couple, rather that they refuse to bake items against their beliefs.
On the radio they were discussing the story and comparing it to forcing a muslim owned business to publish a cartoon mocking Muhammad.
If you say it is illegal to refuse then you essentially aren't you putting them out of business unless they are willing to forego their beliefs.
Spot on. I'd mod you up double but I'm out of points.
"Liberty is about having the right to be "openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic", without fear of physical aggression."
No it's not.
"That's not to say there aren't consequences for one's actions..."
What you are saying is that consequences are equated to a denial of liberty.
"...but a free society isn't one that mandates everyone conform to specific belief system..."
Liberty and freedom aren't a belief system and they do not include the concept of freedom to deny liberty to others due to your belief system.
I agree. While the rest of the US thinks of us as hillbillies in a fly over state most here don't have banjos or corn fields. This won't get far because a lot of the big businesses in the city support rights movements.
The thing is there are still a lot of religious elderly voters and this is a traditionally red state - he's trying to appeal to what he thinks is his base for his no-chance-in-hell presidential run.
Here he is in 2010 joining with Michelle Bachmann's Tea Party Caucus.
That's probably all you need to know.
"But if you cross a line beyond which most people would say it's objectionable content"
No. I don't. I think that Germans will put you in jail for giving a Nazi salute is fucking offensive to freedom of speech and expression but they aren't Americans.
If you're offended that's your fucking problem not mine. What's interesting to me is how everyone is trying to twist the law in to their own personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, and so if you're cognizant of that fact you should be erring hard on the side of liberty for all (unless you don't mind being an unethical hypocritical douchebag, I guess).
"No gay service". That way people would know to avoid the business if they are either gay, or support gays.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
First, religious expression is already protected, so the bill is kind of a waste of time. On the other hand, everyone is also protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, so this absolutely cannot be used by a business to discriminate against anyone. So, it's really a moot issue.
Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.
A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).
The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).
With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:
* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?
and
* What are the consequences of not doing this
Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercon...
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"
I recall fondly my last meeting with the KKK. It involved them showing up on my doorstep with concerns over the neighbourhood and it ended with them leaving with my shotgun pointing at them after they noticed my yarmulke and I reminded then that the mezuzah on my door were not for show.
So again accuse me of bigotry all you like, but when you do so as an AC it is pretty meaningless, especially when your bigotry is so completely obvious.
I do business with whom I want
I do not judge peoples value before doing business with them
It is not about saying people are better or worse than others
It is about saying some behaviours are better or worse.
A subtle point you for you, a blazingly obvious one for me
I will not support a lifestyle I believe harmful to others, I certainly will not put my public support behind it.
Glad to see you afe willing to letvthe government tell you whom you will do business with. It will be hilarious when the LGBT community is forced to dine at Chick-fil-a instead of where they want to eat, because that is the same thing you are trying to do.
As someone who has owned an FLGS,
has friends who are publishers and writers of gaming material.
Helped start AWA, Project A-kon and staffed decades of DragonCon
I hereby promise to never attend another GenCon.
People should be able to serve whom they want and I refuse to bow down to the tyranny of the minority
How is this offtopic? Oh because the metamoderation system is being abused to silence dissent
Racism is an ideological construct. Moron.
the citizenship would be enlightened if your corporate minders didnt eviscerate the education system so badly that kids have no idea which way is up and how to function with out an electronic device.
Dear Americans,
I thought you'd promised you would not try this AGAIN after the Selma kerfuffle...
Yours
Civilisation
Agree with PEOPLE having the right to be assholes.
That said a BUSINESS is not a person, hence it has not the right or liberty to be an asshole or even to have a religion.
People in the business can individually have a religion, but for the business: people are just another type of tangible asset.
So if a business were to be able to have a religion it would have to be uniform across all the classes of assets.
Which brings up a complication of how do you find out the theological leaning of a stand mixer, gas oven and a brick building?
GenCon is under contract to stay in town until 2020, and has already said they don't plan to break that contract.
So, any blowback from this will happen safely after the *next* election, which makes it Not His Problem. (Hell, the guy might be making his presidential run by that point!)
Yeah, that's never been abused before...
I am okay with that as long as hispanic, black and asian owned business can also have "no Caucasians" signs with equal protection and enforcement of such.
If I were in Indiana after this was signed, I would be tempted to put up signs that say "Christians will not be served, unless they are being served to Lions".
A business is not a person, but a business is run by people. It is an extension of the workers themselves. I know you're trying to derail things by going into the "a business is not a person" argument (and I agree with you, a business is not a person - you cannot, for example, sentence a business to 20 years in prison), but it doesn't matter. Forcing a person to provide a service to someone they do not wish to serve is still forcing.
This brings me to another thing people don't quite seem to understand.
By saying, "I think those people are wrong, they're intolerant, they should be forced to act against their conscious," you are yourself being intolerant.
Diversity of thought really does mean diversity - not just the diversity you happen to agree with.
This is the big downward spiral of freedom you get from the so-called liberals. They want to promote fairness and diversity, but in the process, they unfairly prevent people from being diverse. It's hypocritical. It doesn't make sense.
But, ultimately, this is not about Right or Left, secular or religious, gay or straight. It's about remaining faithful to the the vital principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech which underpin our democracy.
We dilute them at our peril.
Love sees no species.
A business is not a person, but a business is run by people. It is an extension of the workers themselves. I know you're trying to derail things by going into the "a business is not a person" argument (and I agree with you, a business is not a person - you cannot, for example, sentence a business to 20 years in prison), but it doesn't matter. Forcing a person to provide a service to someone they do not wish to serve is still forcing.
I am okay forcing a business to do something.
If the worker in question does not want to handle the request, they should have someone they can call in who will.
As an example one of the supermarkets around here has a Muslim cashier who will not handle/touch/ring up non-Halal meats. They have a sign and always have a non-Muslim cashier open at the same time. This is not forcing the Muslim to do anything, but the business itself is 'forced' even if only economically to handle non-Halal meats being checked out.
This does not infringe on the freedoms of the individual workers. Now it might force a Christian run business to hire outside their particular Christian sect in order to accommodate their potential clientele, but I do not really see an issue with that since their is plenty of overlap on various Christian sects' beliefs.
I didn't moderate your original comment, but frankly it does look like you were trolling. Looking at the poor writing, the weird line breaks, the semi-formed sentences and the lack of clarity about why you're planning to boycott GenCon, your troll moderation seems both understandable and reasonable.
Furthermore, I strongly doubt your comment was moderated down because people disagree with you. Simply put, there is virtually nothing in your message to disagree with. You wrote a poor comment and it got moderated down, accept it and move on. Most of your other comments are better written.
...ideas so great, they're mandatory!
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Reminder - next time you see a republican fuck - push them down some stairs.
About fucking time! I don't associate with violent chinks anyway.
" And even if it was purely a choice, in as much as it's a choice that hurts no one"
Tell that to the MILLIONS of dead people killed by HIV/AIDS which did not exist in the US before it was brought here, and spread across the nation by homosexuals. When the disease first got the attention of the NIH, the government health officials BEGGED the gay "bath house" operators in SanFran to close temporarily until the medical experts could figure out what this (at that time) new "gay plague" was. The "gay community" refused. They put their recreational activities and proclivities above the public health.
Decades, BILLIONS of dollars, and MILLIONS of deaths later, the "gay community" STILL has the highest levels of several STDs that permanently harm the victims, and is still the core of the HIV epidemic and the American resurgence of TB. The "gay community" still refuses to become responsible and civilized and instead uses political pressure to suppress criticism.
Opposition to homosexualtity is NOT a disease, certainly NOT a "phobia" and NOT "bigotry" - it is a sound reaction to a public health DISASTER. NO other group would be permitted to cause so much death and destruction.
his command to "go forth and sin no more". (he NEVER said: society must re-define "right" and "wrong" to make your sin now be "right")
Religions are ~2000 years old;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Humans are ~200,000 years old;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Casteism
Not exactly. By the definition of "abortion" that most pro-lifer's like to use (any pregnancy termination after fertilization of an egg), hormone-based birth control in some circumstances does cause abortions.
Banning The Pill of course would have massive social implications, but that's precisely where the absolutist line of thinking leads one.
If you’re against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration law because you believe it’s anti-gay, then you must also believe the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced by noted anti-gay bigot Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed by the House on a voice vote, and signed into law by another hateful, anti-gay bigot President Clinton is also anti-gay.
The texts are in all meaningful portions the same.
1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
2015 Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
“A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Maybe the difference is that the 1993 Act was enacted to let American Indians allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to use peyote in ceremonies, while the 2015 Act was enacted to let Christian businesses allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to refuse to support gay marriage.
Maybe the new standard on religious freedom (and by extension free speech) should be: If the religious practice or speech is popular, it’s fine. If not, too bad.
We can and will disagree on applications of the law, but to attack the entire law as anti-gay is disingenuous at best.
f you’re against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration law because you believe it’s anti-gay, then you must also believe the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act introduced by noted anti-gay bigot Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), passed by the House on a voice vote, and signed into law by another hateful, anti-gay bigot President Clinton is also anti-gay.
The texts are in all meaningful portions the same.
1993 Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
“Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
2015 Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
“A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Maybe the difference is that the 1993 Act was enacted to let American Indians allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to use peyote in ceremonies, while the 2015 Act was enacted to let Christian businesses allege unconstitutional government infringement of their religious freedom to refuse to support gay marriage.
Maybe the new standard on religious freedom (and by extension free speech) should be: If the religious practice or speech is popular, it’s fine. If not, too bad.
We can and will disagree on applications of the law, but to attack the entire law as anti-gay is disingenuous at best.
Guess which noted bigots in our United States Senate voted in favor of a 1993 statute with the same exact language as Indiana’s no good, very bad, horrible, totally anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration law?
Well, since there were 97 such horrible individuals, so I’ll just provide you the highlights. You may recognize a few of these gay-hating individuals:
Joe Biden (D-DE) (current US Vice President)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA) (the “Lion of the Senate”)
John Kerry (D-MA) (current US Secretary of State)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) (former mayor of San Francisco)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) (poorly closeted alleged lesbian)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Paul Simon (D-IL) (former presidential candidate)
Bill Bradley (D-NJ) (former presidential candidate)
Noted gay basher Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the legislation in the House, where it passed on a voice vote. And the least gay-friendly human of all time, President William Jefferson Clinton (D), signed the bill into law.
So please, tell me again how Indiana’s 2015 legislation, taken almost verbatim from the federal government’s 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is a masterwork of gay hatred. If you choose to do so, please explain in detail the functional differences between the two pieces of legislation.
I will buy nothing coming from Indiana. I will sell nothing to Indiana. I do business with civilizated people. No barbarians.
it really ticks me off how the right has characterized the ability to be openly racist, sexist, misogynist, transphobic, and homophobic as "freedom and liberty. absolutely disgusting.
New term? Transphobic? Does that mean fear of being tricked by a MAN dressed as a woman?
It isn't my opinion, it is a fact. If you are born with a penis (and no vagina) you are a BOY. You will grow up to be a man. Your chromosomes are XY. Maybe you'll be gay, but cutting your dick off will not make you a woman.
man (thinks he is a woman) != sane
man (cut peen off) != woman
Would you force a gay bar to do business civilly with someone wearing a "God hates fags" t-shirt? Or would you say "well if that person gets their ass kicked, too bad - so sad."
Freedom doesn't mean forcing others to do what you think is right. It doesn't mean being 'free' to never be offended. It doesn't even mean freedom from discrimination.
So just let them enjoy the freedom to be assholes -- even to you people who prefer to lick or fuck assholes (I kid, I kid). Seriously, you can't force 'tolerance' on other people. Go to another goddamn store and tell everyone about it.
Does the 2nd amendment apply to everyone or just the 'militia' -- even though we weren't supposed to have a standing army?
So, wouldn't the 1st amendment only apply to the press?