Gen Con Unhappy with Indiana Governor over SB 101 - Update

Areloch

It's that one guy
Dec 10, 2012
623
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Areloch said:
MarsAtlas said:
Poor poor persecuted Christians, no longer allowed to freely throw gay people in jail for their sexual orientation, they're on death's door, trying their best to get out legislation so that they can discriminate against gay people in their professional lives, such as refusing emergency medical care to them. I mean its just horrific to think of Christian doctors, surgeons and EMTs being forced to treat gay people like they were actual human beings.
I think you've cracked it! Clearly every person that's a Christian is 100% for this bill and is CLEARLY only doing anything for the express purpose of discriminating against everyone ever. You know, because they're Christian.

Seriously, come off it. Some douchebags are voting for a douchebag bill. You don't need to demonize millions of people that have nothing to do with it because you're upset.
I'm was more meaning this in regards to the Christians who act like they're being oppressed by being forced to treat LGBT people like human beings, not all Christians as a people. Sarcasm doesn't quite roll off as well, and I thought it was fairly obvious that it didn't apply to all Christians. For example, more than half of Catholics in the United States support same-sex marriage.
Ah, my apologies then. I had not detected the sarcasm (says a lot about how distressingly believable that sort of rhetoric is, not even specifically towards Christians)
I've just seen too much of that kind rhetoric targeting all kinds of groups, it grates on the nerves at this point.
 

Deathfish15

New member
Nov 7, 2006
579
0
0
The Hungry Samurai said:
Deathfish15 said:
WBC is knowing for their discrimination rallies. If they -the catering company- refused service for them, there is more than enough evidence floating around the internet to explain that this is a discrimination business that they didn't want to cater to the discrimination. Any $5 lawyer would get the catering company off without a dime lost against WBC, that "church" makes themselves look bad.
And while that would be Karmically awesome, is it right? What if the affair that these WBC jerks want catered isn't a discrimination rally. A baptism for example. Would it still be right for the caterer's to tell them to sod off?
And there is a 99.9% chance that this wouldn't happen at all. Ever. Probably 100%. What you fail to understand is that discriminatory groups do not hire people that they discriminate against. All that the catering company would have to do is mention that they're LGBT to the WBC and they'd be instantly 'fired' from doing the catering job altogether. No need to refuse service because WBC would do it for them.

But want a GREAT example?

How about this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/

We don't know the full details because it is right now a case of he said vs she said. If she is correct in what his original request was, then she definitely had the right to refuse service in making a discriminatory cake. However if he is correct in that his cake was just a bunch of bible quotes without the direct images, then she would have been completely in the wrong on refusing. Based on his refusal to comment on the specifics of the cake until after the fact that the bakery mentioned it openly only helps hurt his side and seems to support hers far more.
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
Here's an update, the governor signed it.
Today I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because I support the freedom of religion for every Hoosier of every faith.
The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.
One need look no further than the recent litigation concerning the Affordable Care Act. A private business and our own University of Notre Dame had to file lawsuits challenging provisions that required them to offer insurance coverage in violation of their religious views.
Fortunately, in the 1990s Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?limiting government action that would infringe upon religion to only those that did not substantially burden free exercise of religion absent a compelling state interest and in the least restrictive means.
Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states?including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky?have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action.
In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.
This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation?s anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana.
Indiana is rightly celebrated for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and values of our people, and that will never change. Faith and religion are important values to millions of Hoosiers and with the passage of this legislation, we ensure that Indiana will continue to be a place where we respect freedom of religion and make certain that government action will always be subject to the highest level of scrutiny that respects the religious beliefs of every Hoosier of every faith.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/471999/indiana-gov-mike-pence-signs-religious-objections-bill
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
Update: the response was to sign the bill in a private ceremony. Looks like they think they can win where Arizona can't...too bad companies are already pulling out or planning to, and their sports programs are gonna grind to a halt.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
Deathfish15 said:
But want a GREAT example?
Sure. Still waiting. It fascinates me that bigots seem to truly believe that the notion of tolerance must include tolerance for intolerance, or else it's not tolerance, and/or hypocritical somehow. People are remarkably willing to cling to paper-thin justifications for what they want to believe.

The example you bring up is literally trolling. He made the request for the purpose of filing a lawsuit about it.

A true reverse example to a bakery refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - solely because it's gay - would be a bakery refusing to make a cake for a straight wedding, solely because it's straight. Refusing to make a cake because its message is deliberately insulting is not the same thing at all.
 

Lufia Erim

New member
Mar 13, 2015
1,420
0
0
Otakun said:
I have a problem with bills like this and not for the reason the vocal majority do. I completely believe that a business should have the right to refuse business to ANYONE without the media/government/public backlash for their choice because it is their business and if they don't support something then that is their right to not to but ... when this is clearly an anti-gay bill it ruins that possibility for a business to make it's own decisions on who to serve.
I would too, IF i trusted companies to be fair, but i don't. I could definately see companies having a " white heterosexual male only" banner. Refusing to hire visible minorities, women and disable people.
 

Riotguards

New member
Feb 1, 2013
219
0
0
so let me get this straight, you don't support the bill to discriminate but you'll go ahead and host it there anyway?

you do know that money talks and denying money is the best way to get a politician to move
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
STOP BEING FUCKING COWARDS! pull the conference, offer apologies and refunds and explain the situation, people would understand, then reschedule somewhere better next year. all this pussy-footing "oh, an exception..." FUCK THAT. they passed a piece of legislation you find reprehensible, fucking stand by it with some god damn courage, not this faux-politically correct sanctions bullshit. fuck, i was so excited, then i just see more corporate and bureaucratic bullshit.

i'm angry.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Jul 8, 2011
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
Wow, you guys. They never once even remotely hinted that this year's convention was even considering being pulled. Four months out, a convention that size has immense momentum.
 

karloss01

New member
Jul 5, 2009
991
0
0
Riotguards said:
so let me get this straight, you don't support the bill to discriminate but you'll go ahead and host it there anyway?


you do know that money talks and denying money is the best way to get a politician to move
martyrdrebel27 said:
STOP BEING FUCKING COWARDS! pull the conference, offer apologies and refunds and explain the situation, people would understand, then reschedule somewhere better next year. all this pussy-footing "oh, an exception..." FUCK THAT. they passed a piece of legislation you find reprehensible, fucking stand by it with some god damn courage, not this faux-politically correct sanctions bullshit. fuck, i was so excited, then i just see more corporate and bureaucratic bullshit.

i'm angry.
While I agree with both of ya, have either of you considered the thought that maybe the organisers have already paid for everything in advance; and that if they pulled out they would be the ones out of pocket and likely put future convention hosting in jeopardy? It may be too late to pull out due to contractual agreements made with local businesses.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
Signa said:
Call me intolerant if you will, but I think I'm fine with that bill as I understand it. No one should be refusing service to someone just because of stupid shit like them being gay or black or something, but I have no problem letting someone have the freedom to be a dick. If they are really that convinced that gays shouldn't be served, then word is going to get out pretty quickly that no one should do business with them. There's no need to impose laws and fines on someone so self-destructive as that.
that can be a problem though, ESPECIALLY in smaller towns..if you're the only *insert crucial business here* in town, then you can basically bully the town into what you want to do, a.k.a. the whole town can reserve to not serve you many crucial products. If I remember right, John D. Rockerfeller's gas/oil company used to live and die by this method back in the day, he was able to afford bullying the shit out of businesses until they complied with him. What if they're a doctor at a hospital, or an EMT, and they simply say "nope, this guys gay, time to let him bleed out, god's will and all that."

I get what you're saying in theory, but there are too many businesses and "customers" that depend on the good will of the people to do things right and equal for everyone.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
GEN CON, just pull out of Indiana, never look back. I know its been home for many years but at this point its gone full retard. Time to walk away.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
karloss01 said:
Riotguards said:
so let me get this straight, you don't support the bill to discriminate but you'll go ahead and host it there anyway?


you do know that money talks and denying money is the best way to get a politician to move
martyrdrebel27 said:
STOP BEING FUCKING COWARDS! pull the conference, offer apologies and refunds and explain the situation, people would understand, then reschedule somewhere better next year. all this pussy-footing "oh, an exception..." FUCK THAT. they passed a piece of legislation you find reprehensible, fucking stand by it with some god damn courage, not this faux-politically correct sanctions bullshit. fuck, i was so excited, then i just see more corporate and bureaucratic bullshit.

i'm angry.
While I agree with both of ya, have either of you considered the thought that maybe the organisers have already paid for everything in advance; and that if they pulled out they would be the ones out of pocket and likely put future convention hosting in jeopardy? It may be too late to pull out due to contractual agreements made with local businesses.
no i hadn't, and i don't need you coming in here bringing any god damned logic to my righteous indignation. take that shit to Wikipedia. Facts are for pussies who don't have the balls to be defiantly wrong.

(i really wish i didn't have to point out that i'm making fun of myself here, and not actually saying ^that^, but the mods on this site are so damn sensitive anymore that satire needs a disclaimer.)
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
Pyrian said:
Deathfish15 said:
But want a GREAT example?
Sure. Still waiting. It fascinates me that bigots seem to truly believe that the notion of tolerance must include tolerance for intolerance, or else it's not tolerance, and/or hypocritical somehow.
It is hypocritical. You don't get to be on the high road over a bigot if you are still telling someone what they can and cannot believe. Southpark said it best: "you tolerate a screaming baby on a plane, but it still can piss you the fuck off!" No one is saying we should accept bigots, but if you're not tolerating them, then you're no better than them. Allowing tolerance to teach intolerance for intolerance is intolerant. It's a fundamentally flawed ideology to allow it that exception. As I said above, if you start drawing lines at people's beliefs, then you will turn the people that hold those beliefs into second class citizens. All the while telling yourself it's OK to discriminate those guys, they are intolerant!

No, if you're going to draw the lines somewhere, it should be a person's actions. We should tolerate neo-nazis existing, we should not tolerate them forming a lynch mob that actively hurts someone else.
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Signa said:
Allowing tolerance to teach intolerance for intolerance is intolerant.
Only if tolerance is an end unto itself, which, I don't know, maybe it is for some people, but I've never met or heard from those people and am pretty sure if they exist at all, they exist only as strawmen. I mean, does anyone honestly think the push for gay rights is about making tolerance an all-encompassing, all-pervasive belief system instead of an attempt to redress social wrongs punishing a vulnerable minority for no demonstrable social benefit beyond the sick joy taken in oppressing others?

Signa said:
If you start drawing lines at people's beliefs, then you will turn the people that hold those beliefs into second-class citizens.
How do you define the term "second-class citizen?" What action do you imagine is being taken that "starts drawing lines?" Because I must say, if it's anything less severe than passing legislation to remove a citizen's rights based on his beliefs, then it sounds like you're saying disagreeing with an asshole is victimizing that asshole.

Signa said:
No, if you're going to draw the lines somewhere, it should be a person's actions.
Are you arguing that a business refusing service to a gay person is not an action, or has this discussion moved past the actual legislation involved and gone on to some philosophical point about hypothetical situations?
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
The way I see it is that Gencon and most liberals involved in protesting this kind of thing aren't too bright. Beating this law is simple. See, I'm someone who believes states should have the right to set their own social policies, and that The Federal Government has to be reigned in here. I believe that is how the guys who wrote the constitution intended it as it was how they practiced it. One cannot say gays are entitled to equality and such should be enforced federally when the same founding fathers all backed state laws banning sodomy and guys like Thomas Jefferson are apparently on record as supporting castration of gay men. That said I think this law is stupid and destructive, it only exists as a way of trying to pussyfoot around federal law and avoiding direct confrontation. Taken to it's extreme all you need to do is start creating your own religions to make a point. This can either be religions with a doctrine of acceptance, or ones that encourage discrimination against the people the law was intended to empower. For example for those who know anything about Black Islam (and you can look this up) a central tenet is that there was this ancient scientist-sorcerer named Yakub (sometimes translated as Jakob) who had an unhealthy obsession with magnets. He created the white man as a weapon to oppress the true, black, man and doomed him to servitude. That said a counter prophecy apparently exists that blacks would rise up and throw down the white oppressors and retake their proper place as masters of the world. This doctrine was in part the foundation for Charles Manson's beliefs where he talked about "Helter Skelter" which was going to be a great war between blacks and whites where blacks would win, but whites could find hope and recover by embracing his doctrines. In short your dealing with a VERY racist religion with a lot of followers, and which by it's central tenets should probably have Yakub tag teaming with Lord Xenu as they are just as insane as the scientologists (albeit taken more seriously by more people due to the racial overtones). Start creating variations of Black Islam and refuse service to whites, see how well that goes over with the law makers who by their own law can't exactly do much to stop it. Heck, entirely create your own religions and start policies intended to screw with the people who support the current law. At the end of the day this functionally isn't an anti-gay law, it's an anti-everyone law since as I understand it all you need to do is site an objection from a recognized religion, and in the US at least having something identified as a religion is stupidly easy (to the point where I've felt we need to go back to the founding fathers with our religious freedom laws as well, Scientology being a go-to example of why we need standards). Depending on the exact phrasing of this law (I haven't read the whole thing, but it's apparently complicated if room for "clarifications" exist) it might even be something you can use offensively. What happens for example if you decide to create "The church of the utility god, bringer of lights" and proclaim the divinity of the US power grid and demand that the utility companies are infringing on your religion by not ceding their entire business and infrastructure to control of the priesthood. I doubt there is anything there that could be interpreted that way to start trying to build precedents out of, but given how sloppy some laws are there might be. I know back in Connecticut one "Motorcycle Club" declared itself a religion and their leader as their pastor so they wouldn't have to pay taxes on their clubhouse, and apparently had some interesting adventures when their doctrine declared motorcycles as sacred and their saddle bags as holy ground which for a while complicated search and seizure laws. It was apparently dealt with, but the point is that the US has never been good at passing religious laws on either a state or federal level and they tend to lead to the most insane loopholes you can conceive of, this is probably no exception.

Rather than threatening to leave, maybe Gencon could say create the "Gamer" religion and declare the convention a holy gathering. They are under contract for the next few years, but depending on how they do it they could probably become really annoying, perhaps writing a complicated Scientology/Church Of The Subgenius inspired document that allows them to ban people they think will make a statement. Done correctly they might also be able to say that the state can't collect taxes off of the goods and services at Gencon (I know some Indian festivals even off of Reservations have managed to get things like this) which means that the state won't get any of the revenues it wants from Gencon, or at least have them seriously cut into. By extension imagine if every game/hobby store could claim to be a church of the gamer faith and tax exempt, and able to deny service to people who "aren't geek enough". Perhaps even going so far as having a cardboard cut out of "Saint Gary Gygax" who judges those who come through the door, silently communicating with the blessed priests running the store, and who tells them which infidels to cast out.... I mean forget denying gays services when you can deny service to anyone the voices you claim are in your head tell you to. "Get ye out of my comic shop heathen for I carry D&D books and the ghost of Gary Gygax has told me thou art an unclean infidel!" :)
 

Svarr

New member
Nov 2, 2011
92
0
0
You think this is bad? California wants to pass a bill that allows same sex couples or people who identify as gay/lesbian to be murdered without a second thought legally in broad daylight.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28596274/california-anti-gay-execution-proposal


Of course a christian started the vote for the bill to be passed.
Too many christians now days are forgetting to love thy neighbor and not to judge lest ye be judged, then again they are always zealous with anything different then they were. Don't get me wrong, there's good people who are christians and i have a good friend who is one, it's just that a lot of them are like this.

Oh religion, stop causing fights will you? :c

#dangerousopinions
 

InsanityRequiem

New member
Nov 9, 2009
700
0
0
Svarr said:
You think this is bad? California wants to pass a bill that allows same sex couples or people who identify as gay/lesbian to be murdered without a second thought legally in broad daylight.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28596274/california-anti-gay-execution-proposal


Of course a christian started the vote for the bill to be passed.
Too many christians now days are forgetting to love thy neighbor and not to judge lest ye be judged, then again they are always zealous with anything different then they were. Don't get me wrong, there's good people who are christians and i have a good friend who is one, it's just that a lot of them are like this.

Oh religion, stop causing fights will you? :c

#dangerousopinions
California doesn't. One Republican politician does and a lot of Californian lawmakers have been decrying the bill. But because California's legal network is wonky, the state's somewhat screwed in putting the bill on the ballot. Sadly, "liberal" California is a myth and the state's pretty damn red in actuality.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Svarr said:
You think this is bad? California wants to pass a bill that allows same sex couples or people who identify as gay/lesbian to be murdered without a second thought legally in broad daylight.

http://www.myfoxla.com/story/28596274/california-anti-gay-execution-proposal


Of course a christian started the vote for the bill to be passed.
Too many christians now days are forgetting to love thy neighbor and not to judge lest ye be judged, then again they are always zealous with anything different then they were. Don't get me wrong, there's good people who are christians and i have a good friend who is one, it's just that a lot of them are like this.

Oh religion, stop causing fights will you? :c

#dangerousopinions
How does one crazy lawyer pushing for a law suddenly turn into the entire state of California "wants to pass a bill that allows same sex couples or people who identify as gay/lesbian to be murdered without a second thought legally in broad daylight."? The guy isn't even a Politician, he's just a county Lawyer (they aren't voted into office).