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

[ralphsiegler]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Being homophobic or racist is also a freedom, but has a price, which usually involves being called a douchbag.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sribe]

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.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom

Only in YOUR definition of "freedom".

In the USofA, your BUSINESS has to treat everyone the same. Regardless of race/creed/etc.

You can CLAIM that it is an infringement upon your "freedom" to have to serve black people in your business.

You can CLAIM that you should be "free" to only serve white people in your business.

But you would be wrong. And a bigot.

You do not have to invite a black person into your home. But you do have to serve him in your restaurant.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Nope, the bus was public transportation; Rosa was part of the public. Any private transport, say a cab company, that decides to discriminate against groups of people might find their business hurt if enough sympathetic people decide to boycott it for that reason. That's a right way to solve such problems.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Mysticalfruit]

I'm going to instruct my chain of burger joints to check ID's at the door... Anybody with a first name of "Ralph" will be turned away at the door. My holy book over here clearly states that "Ralph shall be name of the demon who will eat the world." I'm disinclined to have people named Ralph in my establishment who're likely to go into a demonic craze and start eating people. Also any "hussies" named "Roberta" or "Rebecca" they're just tricky sluts, they're not allowed in either.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ralphsiegler]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not. You imagine calling names will change someone? You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying that racists/homophobes are allowed to say "I refuse to do business with people based on this $race / $sexualpreference", but we are not allowed to say "I refuse to do business in an area where such people are also allowed to do business"? Because I really cannot tell if that is the message you are trying to convey.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

The white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard made a choice to show up in a white hood to publicly demonstrate his racism.

There are no requirements upon the dress or other outward behavior of someone indicating their sexual orientation, and there are few religious groups where manner of dress is dictated by the religion in the United States, and there are not all that many members of those groups either.

The point of diversity-blind requirements is to keep many things beyond the control of the individual from being used against the individual. Gender, race, sexual orientation, and according to some, religion, usually fall into those protected classes. Manner of dress and provocative behavior generally do not; one can deny service to the KKK member promenading himself around in costume just as legally as one can deny service to someone not wearing a shirt.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Zirbert]

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.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally?

He would be asked to remove his hood upon entering the store.

If he did not remove it, he would be asked to leave. At which point he is trespassing if he stays.

If he did remove his hood then you'd have a funny story to tell all your friends about who the Grand Wizard is. Want to see it on CCTV?

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

[Microlith]

in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone. Businesses are already prohibited from acting in an arbitrarily discriminatory manner towards people. They're calling it the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to feed a bullshit persecution complex, while enshrining their hateful nonsense into law. If you can refuse business to gays because your religion says so, then you can refuse business to anyone, and that's bullshit.

Well, religion is bullshit, by and large, which is why laws like this are terrible. You have the First Amendment, you don't need to have your superstition put on a privileged pedestal.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Microlith]

Suppose you owned a business, would you serve a white-hooded KKK Grand Wizard who came in for supplies for his next hate rally? I'd rather not.

"Klansman" is not a protected class. Of course, would you know if he came in while not dressed so as to call himself out so obviously? No!

And if you knew who he was, you could refuse to sell to him individually.

You are being silly, would might change a place would be a boycott organized against a business, dropping sales even ten percent would probably wake them up.

Or whole towns could adopt similarly hateful attitudes and make it de-facto. Why the fuck are we wandering back down this path? Oh right, because Christian Love^WHate.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[khasim]

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery.

No.

Slavery is when one person is owned by another.

You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired. A real slave does not have the option of being fired. Learn what slavery really is.

Are you done with the emo, now?

It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

Look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No. Not "any individual".

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..."

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[TWX]

And that points to an interesting issue, as some mannerisms are misinterpreted. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a member of the United States House of Representatives, is homosexual, but does not display common stereotypes. Director and actor Quentin Tarantino is heterosexual, but displays many stereotypes commonly associated with homosexuality, like his vocal patterns and the positions he holds his hands in. Given that Indiana's proposed law seems to allow the business to come to their own conclusions about someone, there are going to be examples when those assumptions are completely incorrect. That means that not even accounting for the poor moral implications of it, it's a bad law.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[jedidiah]

No. The organizers of a convention that arguably falls under the umbrella of "the arts" want to avoid a venue where many people that work in "the arts" would be treated like an underclass.

Indiana can have the NRA convention.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Durrik]

It really depends on who you ask. When I sent out a novel of editing, it used the rules you stated, but the editor came back and said its no longer proper English, and that I should change all of those pronouns where the gender was not specified to they, them, and their.

The one the editor complained the most about was that the crew on the space ship I was writing for referred to the ship as 'she' and 'her'. I personally thought the object was stupid and rejected that change. Especially since there are reasons for calling a ship by the female pronouns. Historical reasons may be nullified by political correctness, but spiritual reasons not so much. Especially since the female pronouns refer to the soul of a ship as any sailor will tell you, and if you treat 'her' right 'she'll' see you home safe.

I sometimes feel like a stick in the mud and I realize that language evolves all the time. To me it will always he, him or his unless you know its female. They, them and their is plural.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[Saanvik]

You cannot compare a belief (bigotry) to human condition (gender, race, sexual orientation), so your analogy is fatally flawed.

However, the law doesn't have to change for a printer to choose not to print posters for the KKK rally, since the refusal is for the job requested, not of the person.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[diamondmagic]

You're free not to operate a store or restaurant if you don't want to serve everyone.

Says who? Which provision of the Constitution grants this authority?

Who determines which classes are protected? It's completely arbitrary.

If a person is denied service, what's their injury? The common law system (not to mention the US Constitution) requires an injured party to bring up a civil lawsuit. If they were extended a written offer to purchase a product, that might be an injury. But if not?

E.g. You want to force a photographer to to work an event they don't want to be at? And then I'm guessing the government will have to investigate if they did a 'good enough' job photographing the event they didn't want to be at.

Or prosecutors have to introspect the inner machinations of the professional to make sure their rationale for accepting a different event was 'good enough' for them to legally decline the one they didn't want to be at. It's absurd, but this stuff has actually happened.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone.

Sure they are. They (and you) want to take away people's freedom to avoid actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Maybe you have a good reason for doing so, but don't pretend that there is no restriction of freedom here. There is.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

Some of us believe that the government isn't there to ban every single behavior that we find distasteful. That doesn't mean that we are "happy to help" encourage it.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[magarity]

Congrats, you win the Internet Reductio ad Absurdum prize for at least several weeks with that one.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[brantondaveperson]

I think you're free to not serve gays if you don't want to.

I literally cannot believe that anybody would seriously hold that opinion. It's certainly not freedom for those being denied service, is it? Oh, they're free to go somewhere else, are they? Sorry - that's not freedom. Freedom itself is a woefully under-examined notion in the good old United States of America.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[aardvarkjoe]

Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.

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

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

What death threats? The example i gave was a statement not a threat. Its no different of a threat as "hands up, don't shoot" is.

Also pedophilia is illegal, advocacy to legalize it is not. In fact, any law barring the political speech of advocacy on it would be unconstitutional.

Evidently, it is not as easy as you think. Nice attempt to skirt the issue though.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[sumdumass]

Except the courts have already said driving is a privilege not a right so the government can be arbitrary on it.

Personally, i do not care if someone drinks and drives. They will end up killing themselves or likely still be safer than people texting or eating behind the wheel. But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before? It seems a little silly to me.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[ChrisMaple]

This law is a thinly veiled attempt to remove all of the civil rights successes of the last sixty years.

The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop.

Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies. This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable.

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[mjwx]

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.

Since when were the KKK protected?

Same as if the Black Panthers or ISIS came in and asked you to print up some hate speech. You can refuse service as the job they're asking you to do is borderline illegal.

I cannot refuse to serve a Muslim or black person on account of their skin colour or religion, but I can refuse to serve someone for being unruly, disruptive, drunk, argumentative or would harm the good name of my business. That last one is important, refusing to serve people with ginger hair would harm my businesses reputation, not refusing to serve the grand pooba of the KKK would have the same effect.

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

[aardvarkjoe]

People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[AmiMoJo]

That's the deal. Society says that if you want the protections of incorporation you have to abide by the rules, which say you can't discriminate on the grounds of pretty much anything involuntary (race, gender, sexual orientation etc.)

Re:Do It, it worked in AZ

[dfghjk]

"Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies."

Wow, you couldn't be any more ignorant.

"This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable."

And an bigot as well.

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:Do It, it worked in AZ

[mog007]

Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies.

Who do you think were the biggest opponents against civil rights issues for non-whites during the mid 20th century?

The same rhetoric about gay marriage was espoused back then, only it was targeting interracial marriage. Verses from the bible were even used to justify it as a "sin".

Christians, on the whole, have probably come to accept the idea that non-whites should be treated equally under the law, but that wasn't the majority opinion back in the 40's or earlier.

In 50 years it's not inconceivable to imagine that the majority of Christians will accept that gay and bisexual people should be treated the same as straight people.

Re: Do It, it worked in AZ

[athenaprime]

Sure, except Christianity's tenets say fuck-all about serving gays. Not in the Commandments or the Beatitudes. Jesus had a hell of a lot to say about hypocrites and greedy bastards, though. Bottom line--if your BUSINESS uses MY tax money, my civic utilities like roads and cops and firefighters, and my civic infrastructure, then you Render Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's and abide by the same civic rules as everybody else. Be a special snowflake on your own dime and in your own church.

Make some noise

[Fiznarp]

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.

Re:Make some noise

[Dunkirk]

Regardless of who "wins" this argument, one side will have pushed their "personal beliefs" on the other. If "pushing your beliefs on someone else" is the basis of your argument against, that's hypocritical. I'm not defending the proposed law here; just pedantically pointing out the logical flaw.

Re:Leave then

[j2.718ff]

For that matter a gay baker shouldn't have to bake a cake for a real marriage.

A "real marriage"? Which marriages are real, and which are fake?

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

Swap the word "gay" for "black" and try again. The country already learned, rather painfully, that letting businesses refuse to serve whole segments of the population causes one hell of a lot of unrest.

Gen Con?

[jfdavis668]

It would be really handy if the article mentioned what Gen Con even was. I had to go look it up.

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.

Re:Gen Con?

[Minwee]

That's okay. You can leave the shredded ashes of your Nerd Card in the bowl by the door.

Re:Leave then

[khasim]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".

And a white baker should not have to serve a black customer, right?

WRONG!

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

You may not like being "forced" to serve black people.

You may believe that it is an infringement of your "freedom" to be forced to serve black people.

Fuck you.

Indiana won't miss them...

[Lead Butthead]

My guess is that the good governor thinks AD&D players are Satan worshipers anyways...

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[cdrudge]

Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't. Big difference.

And it's not just about producing something "gay" (e.g. a wedding cake with two grooms on the top). It also would allow discriminating a gay couple from buying a regular sandwich at a deli, or a drink at a coffee shop just because of their marital status. It's a license to discriminate.

GenCon belongs in Milwaukee

[Dracos]

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.

Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

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.

Re:Hmmm ....

[puzzled_decoy]

I think people with certain belief should be allowed to discriminate, and this includes denying me service. I wouldn't like it, but I don't think I have the right to violently force them to perform a service for me.

The only exception to this would be people involved in public service (including utilities), or people who deal with the immediate health and well-being of others (hospitals). If there exist exigent life-or-death circumstances, a business cannot deny service.

I think your stance is one primarily of laziness. You don't want to exert the effort to convince people of something, you would prefer just to force a specific belief system upon people through the govt.

Re:Hmmm ....

[aardvarkjoe]

Would you mind pointing me to the people that want the government to force the convention to stay in Indiana?

Because I haven't heard a single person advocate that.

Re:Hmmm ....

[gstoddart]

In fact, you are quite free to discriminate in your shopping habits based solely on the religious beliefs of the shopkeepers you choose not to visit.

No, you're an idiot.

It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.

It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".

That's a bit lopsided, don't you think? The Christians can discriminate legally, the rest of us can choose not to patronize your business?

There is no other scenario in which a shopkeeper is allowed to say "we don't serve your kind". None. Period. Nada.

But people who subscribe to religion want a special exemption to do exactly that. Which means the religious people feel they deserve a special place in the law, above and beyond that enjoyed by everybody, and in which they hold extra rights ... all while enjoying legal protection from being discriminated against. Isn't that goddamned convenient.

The Taliban say the exact same crap.

So, I submit to you: either we pass a universal law saying we can all be assholes, up to an including the right of someone to refuse to serve religious people or hire them because they believe in god. Or we tell religious people to shut the fuck up, and stop acting like their fucking beliefs make them special in the eyes of the law.

You know, that whole fucking separation of church and state. You can believe whatever the fuck you want. That doesn't change your standing with regards to the law.

And it doesn't exempt you from the law. And there isn't a damned religious person who is going to accept themselves being discriminated against.

Which is just hypocrisy and bullshit from people who think the world revolved around them.

Fuck that. Either your laws are based on principle, or whatever asshole claims his god gives him permission to do as he pleases.

If religion wants an exemption to discriminate, there is absolutely no defensible position for not discriminating against religion.

But don't act like not going to the business of someone who wants the legal right to refuse to serve you is even remotely the same fucking thing unless you could legally refuse to serve them.

Anything else is just self entitled crap.

Re:Leave then

[Fire_Wraith]

So, you think that people should be free to discriminate, for any reason? That it's okay so long as it's just private citizens, and not the government?

So by that line of thinking, it would be okay for there to be a town where:

-The local bus company won't serve ($category) people.
-The local taxi company won't serve ($category) people.
-The local restaurant won't seat/serve ($category) people.
-The local real estate agency won't sell homes to ($category) people.
-The local baker won't bake cakes/pies/etc for ($category) people.

Putting it in the context of "religion" doesn't make it any better. Nor does it make it any better regardless of whether ($category) is Black, Gay, Hispanic, Jewish, Muslim, or, yes, even Christian.

Here's an idea. Maybe, if your religion says you can't serve everyone else in society equally, then you shouldn't be choosing to work in a role where the rest of society expects you to treat everyone equally and fairly in public life? If I'm a religious conscientious objector who believes it's wrong to kill people under any circumstances, should I be able to voluntarily join the Army and then be exempt from anything to do with shooting anything or anyone? Of course not.

Re:Leave then

[Anonymous Coward]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage"

You know, I get really tired of the way the term "Christian" has been co-opted to mean "member of the bigoted, extremist Christian right".

I'm a Christian. I have been a Christian all my life, and I bet I read the Bible and pray far more often than a lot of these "Christian" blowhards. (Currently doing one of those read-the-Bible-through-in-a-year thingies.) I've been a camp counsellor at a Christian summer camp, I teach Sunday School, I sing in the choir, I occasionally play piano for the worship services, I have helped advise our pastor on sermon topics, and I was at one time the president of my congregation,

And you know what? Gay marriage doesn't bother me one bit, Leviticus notwithstanding. Being gay isn't a choice, so if someone is gay, God must have made him that way. If that's the case, who am I to condemn it?

Regardless, This Is Asking for Trouble

[andywest]

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.

Re:buh bye

[jeffmflanagan]

You've clearly internalized too much wingnut media.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

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.

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

When you run a public business, the government gives you nice shiny benefits in exchange for you following certain standards. You can't kick out service dogs, you can't advertise sales on things you don't have, and as a public business, you have to serve the public. That's what your business license says!

When your city says "yes, you can own this land and open a storefront"--they sold that land to you because it's zoned for businesses that sell to everyone. They don't sell land on main street to warehouses, they sell it to companies that bring foot traffic and make that area into a commercial hub. Again--you own (or rent) the land because you agreed to serve the public.

If you're baking cakes out the back door of your house and selling them on Etsy (never mind how that works), fine, the government probably didn't support you, and you didn't promise them you'd participate in the economy they set up. But if you have a storefront, or if you pay taxes as a corporation, then society gave you special consideration and you MUST return the favor by doing what you agreed...serve everyone, regardless of skin color or orientation.

Re:Leave then

[bobbied]

No, I don't see a flaw. Except in YOUR logic.

There are things which are protected as a matter of law and you cannot discriminate based on these things. Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on. I say we let the free market decide on everything not currently enshrined in our laws about how to do business..

Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief in how and who they choose to do business with SHOULD be allowed regardless, as a matter of law. If you don't like how a business is run or who it does or refuses service to, you are free to take your business elsewhere and share your views with your friends, neighbors or even the random person on the street if they will listen.

Let the market decide and if the majority of people think like you and take their business some other place, so be it. Just live your life and do your business and let others do the same. Seems like freedom to me.

Forcing people to do business with people in situations where they object, does NOT seem like freedom to me.

Re:They have the freedom to leave it they want

[geekmux]

Same as a business owner should have protection from not having to produce something for pedophilia if it is against their religion.

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.

Running a business should imply tolerance. If you are too blinded by your own religion to see that, have fun with the bankruptcy paperwork, because the world around you is becoming intolerant of this bullshit.

Re:Leave then

[puzzled_decoy]

No one is forcing you to associate with anyone.

But as a BUSINESS, you will provide the same service to everyone regardless of race/creed/religion/etc.

So, as a business, you are being forced to associate with people.

I personally wouldn't use a service or purchase a good from a business that actively discriminates. But I don't think anyone has the right to dictate who they can or cannot refuse service to.

At the end of the day, discrimination is bad for business. All you need to defeat it is someone who is greedy to open a competing shop, and discriminatory business will wither and die- unless, of course, you are living in a region where everyone discriminates, in which case you having deeper problems than simply legislating a belief system.

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

And the same libertarians in question would tell you:

• that conscription is morally wrong, and should be verboten.
• that taxes are theft.
• that people have the right to refuse to serve on juries

Any law which doesn't also have an actual demonstrable victim (and "society" is not a victim) are immoral and should be repealed.

Re:Leave then

[ShanghaiBill]

After all, divorce statistics show that most people live happily ever after, right?

Actually, they do. Half of all marriages end in divorce, but more two thirds of all people that get married don't get divorced. How is that possible? Many people get married and divorced repeatedly, and that throws the numbers way off. Second marriages have a 75% chance of divorce.

A Public Business Must do Business With the Public

[Rambo Tribble]

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.

SSDD

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

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.

Re:Leave then

[itzly]

Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief in how and who they choose to do business with SHOULD be allowed regardless, as a matter of law.

Why 'sincere religious belief' ? Why not any other arbitrary made-up criterion ?

One More Time...

[Rollgunner]

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.

Re:One More Time...

[itzly]

And sometimes people get together, and vote on certain decisions that take some freedoms away, in return for what they think is an overall improvement in their lives.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[puzzled_decoy]

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.

Re:Leave then

[ShanghaiBill]

A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".

Correct. Under the law, he doesn't have to. He can sell doughnuts, cupcakes, danishes, etc. instead. But if he offers wedding cakes to the public, then he has to offer them to the entire public.

Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?

No, a Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding, because he always has the option of getting out of the wedding photography business. He can photograph dogs or nature scenes instead.

Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.

The Constitution also gives the government the power to regulate commerce. The courts have ruled that absolute freedom of association does not apply to commercial services offered to the pubic. You are free to disagree, but unless you are appointed to the Supreme Court, your opinion doesn't matter much.

Re:Leave then

[jsepeta]

Because Christ's central message was "Fuck you, that's not how I want to rule the world."

Wait, no, that was HITLER'S message. I believe Christ's was "Love your neighbor as your brother."

Re:Leave then

[Stormy Dragon]

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?

But an atheist baker has to indulge a Christian cashier who think company policies don't apply to them. Because Evangelicals are fine with forcing involuntary service on everyone else.

Re:Leave then

[HiThere]

Real marriages are the ones that give you a tax advantage/ health care saving/etc.

Re:This will be used against blacks

[itzly]

You are right. In some communities, it will be used to deny service to whites.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[fightinfilipino]

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.

Re:Leave then

[smooth wombat]

So you have no problem with a smelting company opening next door to your house? A garbage dump? Fat rendering?

Zoning is done for a common sense reason, one you obviously fail to grasp.

Re:The party that shouts freedom the most

[Grunschev]

First, you're not forced to do business with anyone. Don't want to bake wedding cakes for gays? Don't operate a bakery. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. To be a licensed business, a baker, you agree to be bound by certain rules. No rat shit in the chocolate, for example. You will be subject to inspections. But, according to your logic, you've lost the freedom to put rat shit in the chocolate. You're no longer free.

But let's ignore all that and actually think about your suggestion. You, as a bigoted Christian (or whatever), want to be allowed to refuse service to gays, blacks, paraplegics, whatever. And you're perfectly willing to let the market decide your future. But, for this to actually happen, you have to let all your customers know what you think. So, instead of just refusing to serve queers and niggers, to be transparent and allow the invisible hand of the market to work, you'll need to post signs that tell people that you don't serve fags and kikes. See, if you don't do that, I won't know that you're a horrible, shitty person and I could accidentally buy one of your cakes. Because, you see, I won't know any of this because you won't refuse me service. You *must* advertise that you're a homophobic racist before I'll know to avoid you.

So, if you *really* support this lame-brained idea of yours, your misguided concept of freedom in polite society, we'll have to take away your freedom not to advertise that you're not willing to participate in polite society. Own it - put up a big fucking sign in your window that says you're a homophobic xenophobe. That way we can all really see who and what the market will support. Don't hide from us - own your narrowmindedness!

Re:Leave then

[Dredd13]

I would have a problem with it and I might even move away if it happens, but my moral convictions tell me that I have no authority to tell them what they can do with their land.

Re:Leave then

[SAN1701]

Oh, that's easy. The real ones are when two people love and care for each other and hope to leave the remaining of their lives together. The fake ones are motivated by economic, politics, or even when two teenagers are bullied to it by their parents.

It always amazed me that (most) religions are fast to discard the former if the couple are from the same gender, but absolutely have no problem whatsoever with the latter if it's between a man and a woman, even when it's obvious there's no love. You know, that "God's gift".

Re:Leave then

[Sowelu]

I've got a sneaking suspicion you've never, not even once in your life, had those particular moral convictions run up against your personal convenience.

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[Fire_Wraith]

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?

Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel

[KermodeBear]

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.

Re:Truth in Labeling: Require a sign on the door.

[Theaetetus]

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...

Re:Let them sell cake

[Mullen]

> 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).

Business are not people, so stop speaking of them as though they have Natural Rights like you or I. Businesses are artificial constructs of a society and thus have to follow the rules of that society. Businesses don't get to decide anything, they are allowed to function within a certain set of rules and one of those rules is they don't get to discriminate.

Re:Leave then

[tnk1]

The reality is that you *don't* have a right to run a business naturally. Natural "laws" like natural "rights" are a figment of our imaginations.

You operate a business at the sufferance of the community. Which no one likes to hear because it tells the truth that our liberties are limited.

Mostly the government operates to keep people from killing one another in the streets. Pissing off some segment of the population because you don't like them will cause that sort of fighting and the government needs to step in and enforce order. That's the reality of things.

Liberties are there because we found that having our overlords tell us what to do wasn't really cutting it. However, we're still not actually "free" and actual freedom of the sort that some espouse makes for a very, very chaotic place that this population is not at all able to comprehend nor is it prepared for it.

I'm not a big fan of government bureaucracy or overreach, and I'd like to split things up more, but ultimately we're doing many of these things so we don't end up with another Civil War. Ignoring that result is blinding yourself to reality. We can only have the freedoms that most of us can handle.

Umm... No. Your metaphor is broken.

[denzacar]

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?

Re:What's in the bill?

[Jarik C-Bol]

Holy shit, a rational argument. I thought I was on slashdot.

Re:It works both ways

[Sique]

If your business is "open to the public", then you have to serve the public. Period. It's a matter of contract. You as a business make an offer to the public to serve them, and if someone accepts that offer, the contract is finalised. You can't reopen the negotiations afterwards by claiming that you don't like the person for whatever reason. That would be culpa in contrahendo.

If you don't want to serve some groups of people for whatever reasons, you aren't open to the public. And then you have to say that first, e.g. by calling you a club or a closed society.

Re:Leave then

[TechyImmigrant]

You may be afflicted with Christianity, but you should not seek to afflict others with it.

Re:It works both ways

[Grishnakh]

So that means you think it's fine if a restaurant posts a sign saying "NO BLACKS".

Re:It works both ways

[Khashishi]

Because history shows us that it turns out bad. When bigots are a small minority, it's ok to let the free market deal with the problem. When they are in the majority, or when they wield a majority of the power, the free market gets ugly. Just look at pre-civil rights era segregation.