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.

Comments

Do It, it worked in AZ

[garyisabusyguy]

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

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Em Adespoton]

Please cite specific gyms, clothing stores, medical centers which refuse to business with men for services that would be applicable for men. For everyone you post, I'll likely be able to post an example of the same type of business being sued and winning a discrimination lawsuit.

I'm not going to name names as they're pretty common around here -- fitness centers that advertise that they are only for women. Just google for "women-only" and you'll find all sorts of generic services aimed at women -- and a McGill University issue regarding a fitness gym and arguments for/against having gender-exclusive gyms at a university.

You look at their websites and everything they say (other than "exclusively for women") is just as applicable to men as to women. Unless you believe high-low and yoga classes are somehow incompatible with the male physique.

That said, I have no problem with women-only gyms (or men-only gyms). This is discrimination that in my view is perfectly acceptable, as it's based on real issues in our society, and is preventing negative fallout due to those issues. I'd have issues with a gym that segregated based on skin tone or native language though.

Hey... I've been into lots of high end retail stores in my casual clothes where the clerks have refused to even acknowledge my existence -- I figure they saw a guy in cheap department store clothes and figured I couldn't afford to shop there if I wanted to. Never bothered to press charges, but I guess I theoretically could have -- but it would be hard to prove anything (although security footage would help). Easier just to add them to the list of places not to spend my money, and reward the stores that DO want my patronage.

Where the problem really exists is when (like with Verizon/Comcast) there's really no other alternative service you can use. In these cases, if EVERYONE is discriminating based on sexual preferences/gender/melatonin level/perceived wealth, then individuals are being locked out of service, and that's bad.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Microlith]

They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

They already have that freedom. What businesses don't have the freedom to do is to treat people differently on an arbitrary basis, and the government of Indiana is trying to change it so people can, via companies, treat others like shit on the basis of their personal superstitions, which is unjustifiable and destructive.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Wrong. There are several cases recently where the first amendment and religious freedom was ignored and state protections of gays were upheld. As sad as it sounds, this law is meant to avoid that.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[ultranova]

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

You aren't participating in a gay wedding. Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is. Corporate veil doesn't disappear whenever that happens to be advantageous to you yet shield you the rest of the time.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[JonnyCalcutta]

Bit of a strawman there. Nobody is saying people have to stock specific products for LGBT people - only that they have to serve them whatever they do sell. They can't refuse to serve them just because they are gay.

The coffee shop doesn't have to stock special gay tea, but they have to sell coffee to gay people in exactly the same way they serve it to everyone else.

Re:Gen Con?

[alvinrod]

One would think that if you were to comment on such an obvious omission, that you would have explained it yourself.

Short answer: It's a tabletop gaming convention.