Gen Con to Possibly Leave Indiana [politics]

[Bren]

I already asked in this thread if businesses (in Indiana) currently have an obligation of service to everyone who asks, and if this law would allow shop owners to discriminate against certain categories of people (and not especially gays).

I was answered that: 1) Business owners have no obligation to accept anyone, and can refuse if they deem so. 2) The law is only about if they were sued by an angry rejected customer, that they could invoke (in court) the right to discriminate because of religious beliefs.

While there are no statewide law in Indiana (unlike, say, Connecticut) that bans discrimination for sexual orientation, there is such laws in some locales, e.g. Indianapolis and Fort Wayne. Which makes this an attempt by the anti-gay lobby to overrule local preferences with state-wide laws. It also helps explain why the mayor of Indianapolis was peeved that anti-gay lobbyists in his state capital were writing legislation to override the will of his constituents on how their city should operate.

[jeff37923]

But the difference here Jeff is those of us arguing against the law and taking a different position from you, aren't saying you need to leave the hobby or you have to change your way of thinking. We're not trying to police thoughts and language here, we just have serious concerns about what effects this law will have on the rights of gay people. I get the concern about the social justice warrior thing. I certainly think that stuff has made some quarters of the hobby hostile to open discussion and to just playing and enjoying the games people like. This seems like more of a real world issue. One where we are not all going to agree on for a variety of reasons. But I do think this law is bad and that people have a right to be able to buy goods and services.

OK, I got it. I'm trying to mentally unpack all of it, but I got it.

EDIT: I had to do a little mental unpacking here, and my only response is what about the lawsuits and how they are affecting people? There are no easy answers, but you do have to look at the cases being tried which caused SB 101 to be written in the first place. The florest case was decided in February, here is the result.

[Lynn]

EDIT: I had to do a little mental unpacking here, and my only response is what about the lawsuits and how they are affecting people? There are no easy answers, but you do have to look at the cases being tried which caused SB 101 to be written in the first place.]

It isn't a new thing that some people who do not seem to deserve it get hurt. In jury trials, I know some folks who should be found guilty get off because of jury sympathy (I had a bad case of this on the first federal jury I sat on - but sense finally prevailed).

This does seem to create another opportunity to sue when there wasn't any actual discrimination taking place.

I wonder about the case of a wedding photographer (which I believe is a an actual case now). If you run such a company, you offer a very finite service because you can only service one at a time. A wedding photographer could turn down a gay wedding, not because its a gay wedding, but because they are already booked.

Then there are the businesses that want to follow the "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" mentality, who simply do not want to serve someone who acts like a belligerent ass - such as kicking someone out of your bar.

[Bedrockbrendan]

OK, I got it. I'm trying to mentally unpack all of it, but I got it.

EDIT: I had to do a little mental unpacking here, and my only response is what about the lawsuits and how they are affecting people? There are no easy answers, but you do have to look at the cases being tried which caused SB 101 to be written in the first place. The florest case was decided in February, here is the result.

Keep in mind I was addressing your concern about social justice warriors and this discussion. My point was I think we can disagree over this issue without resorting to tactics that push either of us out of the hobby or make the other into a villain (which is what I see a lot of SJWs doing).

But to address your question. For me I guess I just think the right of people to get goods and services trumps the right of the shopkeeper who doesn't want to make a flower arrangement for a gay wedding. I mean the same reasoning could be used to deny people flowers for an interacial marriage or a bar mitzvah. I am not comfortable allowing people to use their faith as a shield to discriminate that way. Of course there will always be edge cases and I am fine with religious institutions being able to have whatever rules they want in place (i.e. I am fine with the Catholic Church not conducting gay weddings if it doesn't wish to). But this is a business, not a religious institution. And these are flowers. She isn't being asked to sacrifice a bull or take the lord's name in vain.

[Brad]

For me I guess I just think the right of people to get goods and services trumps the right of the shopkeeper who doesn't want to make a flower arrangement for a gay wedding.

The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.

[TristramEvans]

The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.

There is no religious precept about providing goods to people who dont follow your religious precepts in The Bible, that I'm aware of.

However, it does say if you shave your beard you're going to hell.

[Joey2k]

The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.

Or more specifically, to force someone else to provide you with those goods and services.

Christ, it boggles the mind that anyone can claim to be a victim and their rights are being violated if they aren't allowed to force someone to work for them.  I seem to remember an institution a couple centuries ago where people were forced to work for others against their will.  I guess the compensation is a little better today, but still...

[Bedrockbrendan]

Or more specifically, to force someone else to provide you with those goods and services.

Christ, it boggles the mind that anyone can claim to be a victim and their rights are being violated if they aren't allowed to force someone to work for them.  I seem to remember an institution a couple centuries ago where people were forced to work for others against their will.  I guess the compensation is a little better today, but still...

Well I think comparing an attempt to eliminate discrimination based on race, sexuality, sex, etc to slavery is a bit flawed. No one is being asked to work for free or being forced into an occupation they don't want to be in. People are simply being told if you open a bakery, you have to sell cakes to everyone regardless of their identity. I can certainly see the difficulty and complexity of this issue because there is a conflict between key values here. But my feeling is one of the lessons learned from jim crow and the civil rights era is allowing businesses to discriminate who they serve to on the basis on identity (which in my view that is what this is) is wrong and shouldn't be permitted by the law. I don't want a store to be able to refuse me or my wife goods or services because of who we are, and I would extend that concern to others. By all means people have a right to practice whatever religion they want but they can't use that to infringe on other peoples rights.

[Bedrockbrendan]

The right to exercise religious precepts is spelled out as an actual negative right; there is nothing that says you have a right to "goods and services". That is a key difference for me.

Yes you have a right to practice whatever religion you want. But you can't use that as an excuse to violate other peoples' rights. The right to public accommodation exists. The civil rights act happened. Should a store be able to refuse service to black customers because they belong to the church of the creator for example? Under the civil rights act you can't. The question here is should that be applied to sexuality. I say yes and so does the state I live in. If Indiana doesn't want to share that view and wants to allow discrimination on the bases on sexuality, then I'd really rather not go there to conduct business. I think increasingly most people are starting to recognize that if you can't deny people services on the basis of race or sex, it makes little sense to allow people to do so on the basis of their sexual orientation.

[Brad]

Yes you have a right to practice whatever religion you want. But you can't use that as an excuse to violate other peoples' rights. The right to public accommodation exists. The civil rights act happened. Should a store be able to refuse service to black customers because they belong to the church of the creator for example? Under the civil rights act you can't. The question here is should that be applied to sexuality. I say yes and so does the state I live in. If Indiana doesn't want to share that view and wants to allow discrimination on the bases on sexuality, then I'd really rather not go there to conduct business. I think increasingly most people are starting to recognize that if you can't deny people services on the basis of race or sex, it makes little sense to allow people to do so on the basis of their sexual orientation.

No, those aren't actual "rights" in the same sense whatsoever. Negative rights trump positive rights, at least from a Constitutional view.

[Brad]

There is no religious precept about providing goods to people who dont follow your religious precepts in The Bible, that I'm aware of.

However, it does say if you shave your beard you're going to hell.

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Hey, be involved with crap you have a moral objection to because I said so. right? Selling a gun to someone you know plans to commit murder with it isn't bad, right?

[Bedrockbrendan]

No, those aren't actual "rights" in the same sense whatsoever. Negative rights trump positive rights, at least from a Constitutional view.

Well, I am no constitutional scholar, so I will let legal experts and courts debate that. But in my view this leads us to the conclusion that one can then discriminate against black people by claiming if they are members of the Church of the Creator. So a Creator who owns a hamburger joint could say it is against his religion to serve black customers. That isn't the kind of society I would like to live in. I'm absolutely okay with people being able to practice any religion they want. And I am okay with religious institutions themselves having certain exceptions. But I am not okay with businesses being able to refuse people based on who they are and using religion as the reason.

[Brad]

Well, I am no constitutional scholar, so I will let legal experts and courts debate that. But in my view this leads us to the conclusion that one can then discriminate against black people by claiming if they are members of the Church of the Creator. So a Creator who owns a hamburger joint could say it is against his religion to serve black customers. That isn't the kind of society I would like to live in. I'm absolutely okay with people being able to practice any religion they want. And I am okay with religious institutions themselves having certain exceptions. But I am not okay with businesses being able to refuse people based on who they are and using religion as the reason.

I'm perfectly fine living in a society that allows individuals and private businesses to discriminate as they wish, for any reason. That's free exercise of liberty. Being equal under the law shouldn't be an excuse for the government to tell you what to think or do.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I'm perfectly fine living in a society that allows individuals and private businesses to discriminate as they wish, for any reason. That's free exercise of liberty. Being equal under the law shouldn't be an excuse for the government to tell you what to think or do.

Okay, but understand that means you reject the Civil Rights act.

[LordVreeg]

No, those aren't actual "rights" in the same sense whatsoever. Negative rights trump positive rights, at least from a Constitutional view.

Oh, really?
Goods and services is your quibble?
Perhaps, due to the shortness of the scope and forum I am misunderstanding.  From the Civil Rights Act...
  TITLE II—INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
Sec. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I mean, it goes on.  But that seems to cover it.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+Rights+Act+of+1964

Unless you prefer to go back further and reject the amendments and changes that come about as culture changes.