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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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: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

[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 ?

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: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: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.

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: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: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.