Blizzard Techs Talk Login Times, Not Gay Rights 632
Shane Dabiri and John Lagrave took an interview with Eurogamer, and used the opportunity to talk about the login problems that have been plaguing World of Warcraft since Christmas. As techs, they're not there to talk about the ongoing discussion involving Gay rights in their game world. Kotaku, however, is not under any kind of restriction, and reports on legal movement against the company by Lambda Legal. The group is organized around procuring civil rights for people in the GLBT community, and sent a strongly worded letter to Blizzard's legal team. From that letter: "We are very concerned that Blizzard's policy, as expressed in the foregoing statement, discriminates against LGBT gamers. Although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal." Blizzard has already removed the warning from the player in question, saying that it was an 'unfortunate interpretation' of their EULA.
Argh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuff said.
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad I don't have mod points to mod this insightful.
After all, how does sexuality come into play on WoW? This shouldn't even be an issue and for those who need a MMORPG as an outlet for sexual expression there isn't much to be said in their favor.
Get over yourselves and play the game, don't turn it into some political stomping ground.
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
So, all the fuck-tards wailing "fag" as an insult are going to disappear? Ditto the hateful "Don't get the AIDS!" bits when plague makes the rounds?
Existing is not a "sexual expression." GLBT people grouping together to play WoW in a better environment (vis a vis Guild chatter, etc) is not like sodomizing each o
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
News flash, you don't have a right to avoid being offended, or even avoid being called names.
And it's funny how you disparage the "fuck-tards" for name calling. I have to assume that while you seem open to homosexuality, you're a raging bigot when it comes to mental disability.
Self-hatred can be a bitch.
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever seen a female Night Elf dance (or many other races for that matter)? Sexuality is coded in to the game. And, of course, given the nature of the average audience... players will push what can be done with those animations.
But it doesn't have to be so purile. Ever hear of in-game weddings? Any time RP-oriented players get together, a wedding is bound to happen and WoW is no exception. Now while marriage isn't all about sex, sexuality is certainly a part of it. And in fact, the whole recent hullabaloo seems to have stemmed from a in-game same-sex marriage.
Sexuality is a part of us - it's hard-coded in to our being. It is little wonder that in any environment with some degree of freedom, sexuality surfaces. And that's even in environments that don't code it in - unlike WoW.
One last point - I do tend to agree to a certain extent. I'm not very interested in sexuality in game. Some joker with a half-naked dancing Night Elf on a mailbox is a sure sight of a immature player. And I've never felt any inclination to be part of an in-game wedding (or get involved with anyone's romantic tryst RP). But at the same time, I do understand that some players will be inclined to do these things even if I choose not to play along.
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue.
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is demonstrably false. The Religious Right is a powerful force but the fact is that a lot of otherwise non-religious, modertate people in this country are not comfortable with the idea of gay-marriage. Take the 2004 presidential election as your evidence. I think it was 17 states that had ammendments to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. All 17 of those states voted in favor of the ban - frequently by overwh
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Interesting)
I know which side of that I want to be on. The side without the thousand years of religious wars, oppression, torture, and persecution. But I guess it's just a sad fact there are still people who like the other side.
Re:Argh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is exactly the point. You cannot base current policy off of traditions from 2000 years ago, and religions are afraid of change because change provides the possibility that the religion is wrong. Fundamentalist religions in America are seen as grudging, stubborn, out-of-date, out-of-touch institutions, because they refuse to adapt (like every other institution has). And no, marriage and the family are not religious institutions - otherwise, atheists wouldn't marry or have children.
Re:Argh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gov'ts aren't granting licenses because they want each individual couple to turn into a baby factory. You don't have to promise to have kids or adopt when you get married.
It's more subtle than that. Gov'ts are promoting marriage as an institution because that will indirectly - but vitally - affect society. Gov't has no business getting any closer to people's personal lives than that. They have no business monitoring sex, monitoring conception, monitoring fertility, or even asking about any of the above. Granting marriage licenses is a way to foster families without any of those privacy and human rights issues.
Think of it like business licenses. The gov't gives those out on the principle that it will foster free enterprise. But they don't actually require you to start a business with one, or to hire other people, or to be successful. They give the license and you do with it what you want to.
-stormin
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
2. While this has some merit, marriage is not only about procreation.
Substituing "raising children" for "procreation" I disagree. Give me one good reason why the gov't should issue a license for two people who want to spend their lives together. If you take raising children out of the question - why have marriage as a contract at all? It's a nice
Re:Argh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would the government support an institution for the purpose of achieving something governments weren't involved in until fairly recently? It's not like governments provided education or health care for children before the last 150 years. As long as they got taxes and soldiers, governments didn't give a damn if you had 20 illegitimate kids or a handful of lovingly raised angels. Governments
Re:That's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between "making something an issue" and "defending your rights."
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oddly enough... (Score:2)
Re:Argh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Argh! (Score:2, Insightful)
We do. Many faith-specific guilds exist.
I really think gay people would have an easier time in society if they'd learn where to shut the hell up about sexuality.
Straight people are not expected to shut up about their sexuality. Many of them perform elaborate marriage ceremonies in the game, and in-character flirting is extremely commonplace between characters. If gay people want to form a little club (as many marginalized groups like to do),
re: legal action (Score:4, Insightful)
What players do in their own private areas (houses, guild halls, whatever) is their own business, but in public areas, Blizzard has the full authority to define their own rules; it is, after all their own sandbox. I don't agree with Blizzard's decision, myself, but they have full authority and right to enforce whatever policies they want on -private- services.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Re: legal action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: legal action (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. They have to abide by laws, if they are behind closed doors or not. And the fact that they are a private service doesn't affect that. They can't say no women are allowed to play. They can't discriminate on the basis of religion. And they can't say you are not allowed to say a guild is GLBT friendly because it might offend people when the game's chat has the word "fag" show up more then any other single word.
In fact, based on some things I've read, Blizzard might even be in violation of their own agreement by restricting a GLBT friendly guild when other religious guilds actively promote themselves as such. Both could easily attract people wanting to cause problems, yet only one is warned.
Re: legal action (Score:2)
Yes, it would be legal, technically. I think the law that would make it illegal was repealed a few years back (because it made the movie "American Pie" illegal, amongst other things.)
Look, one guy got a warning for advertising a GBLT-friendly guild in general chat. Blizzard has since apologized, and said that their no-sex-talk rule shouldn't have applied in that case. Don't hyperventilate.
And, by
Re: legal action (Score:2)
That's incorrect. Maybe there's none on the server you play on, but there's a few Christian guilds on Suramar. Heck, the proof is in the pudding. From Thottbot:
Christian Brotherhood [thottbot.com]
Christian Crusaders [thottbot.com]
Christian Fayth [thottbot.com]
Christians in Alliance [thottbot.com]
Christian Knights [thottbot.com]
Followers of Christ [thottbot.com]
etc.. etc... etc...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: legal action (Score:5, Insightful)
Any restaurant can retain the right to refuse service to anyone. Usually it is posted in big bold letters in the entrance. However, YOUR comment takes the argument way out of context. Blizzard doesn't refuse anything to homosexuals. They do require that guilds not post Political/sexual/non-game/etc issues for recruitment on their general forums pages or in game spam in general chat.
Honestly how god damned hard is this to understand. Blizzard won't allow you to recruit in general chat based on being a republican, stripper, democrat, straight guys only, ETC. Their opinion has been if it is non game related keep it inside your guild halls aka your own forum. Blizzard has even stated it is fine for guilds to recruit based off of previous things on Blizzards RECRUITMENT forum but not on the general forum.
Personally I think it was a group of disgruntled homosexual gamers that wanted attention so they broke the rules and then claimed it was blizzard's fault. It wasn't the only reason this is still in the news is because it is easier to blame blizzard than it is the minority. Sure they are a minority but they still broke the rules. I personally hope blizzard bans the people who posted the recruitment based off of sexual orientation in the general forum. It is out of place an unwanted. If I want to find a guild I can go to the recruitment forum.
Re: legal action (Score:2)
And if they set up a restaurant on their private property, they'd be able to refuse service to blacks?
Uhh... no one is trying to refuse service to anyone that's gay here, so this analogy is just plain terrible.
If you want an analogy, I'd compare it to an organized group of people walking around a mall carrying banners for (insert controversial subject here). WoW really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Blizzard just doesn't want to start up that kind of controversy in the game, probbably because they
Re: legal action (Score:2)
Re:Asinine Analogy... (Score:2, Insightful)
False. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to justify such an outlandish statement. Did you "choose" to be straight when you turned 12? I didn't. I just was. It was already ingrained in me. Likewise with homosexuals. Think about it: why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay, knowing the sorts of abuse and prejudices they'd face?
It's not a choice. So your whole argument is shot to hell. Prejudice against homosexuality is exactly like prejud
Read my post again... (Score:2)
Re:Read my post again... (Score:2)
I don't know about that. I'd check with Dave Chappelle if I were you - he practices being asian, white, etc. on his show all the time...
So anyway, your argument is that, when people can choose their skin color (bound to happen with advanced technology someday), it'll be OK to discriminate beteween people based on what color they choose?
Good point, however... (Score:2)
I may *choose* to be a member of a "religion" that advocates group suicide. We might all want to stand in a circle, point and gun at the head of the person on your right and when the "preacher" says, "Go!". We all pull the trigger (so we all get to go to heaven and get 70 philly-cheesesteak sandwiches or some such foolishness).
I know it's a r
Re: legal action (Score:2)
What, kind of like enforcing a Blacks only section on a private bus service? I don't think so.
Re: legal action (Score:2)
Obviously, Blizzard has the right to make some rules, but obviously, they can't do just *anything* they want to, either; in particular, it may well be they can't legally discriminate against certain groups (I'm not familiar enough with anti-discrimination laws to say whether that's the case, but I'd be surprised if they could).
W
Re: legal action (Score:2, Insightful)
Now AFAIK, a MMORPG service is not offered by state or federal authorities, nor is it freely available, nor is it open.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Well, I'm not surprised (Score:2, Funny)
As far as it goes, it doesn't go very far.
Where's the outrage? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, there's been no complaint about this. No one cared. "It's just a fantasy game."
I guess it's only because WoW is so popular that we're hearing about this in the first place. It's just people purposely trying to raise trouble to get "their issue" into the press. Unfortunately, it's working.
Blizzard was already trying to do the Right Thing (Score:2, Insightful)
And since when does one have the right to play LBBT characters in a role playing game for heaven's sake? If you don't like the rules, then leave. Not liking the rules is not an excuse for demanding that anyone else has to cha
Re:Blizzard was already trying to do the Right Thi (Score:5, Insightful)
One doesn't, and this isn't what these players sought. They sought a group of players who don't spew sexuality invective like it's punctuation. Which, I have to say, seems entirely reasonable to me.
Re:Blizzard was already trying to do the Right Thi (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you not have the right to play a LGBT character? My husband and I played DaoC for a while, and he played a female character, as did I. We also played our characters as lovers. By your logic that would not be allowed at all. It's a game that reflects reality. In reality the gay and lesbian population hovers around 11% to 14% in every culture. It exists as a normal part of the range of human be
Your rights stop where mine start (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your rights stop where mine start (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose instead people shouted things like "nigger" when something didn't go their way... that they made frequent supportive allusions to the KKK... that when someone did something they didn't like, they called him a "darky"...
Would it be unreasonable for a group of black players to try to organize a black-friendly group to play with so they wouldn't have to listen to rampant bigotry continually? Or would you protest this as just bringing real-life politics into your game?
Merlockocaust (Score:4, Funny)
You insensitive genocidial monster! Merlocks are fish-people too! Have you ever though about their feelings? Have you ever tried to talk to them, rather than just wipe out their villages and roll to see who gets the chest loot? Of course not. Why, it just makes me seeth, I-RRRRRRRAALLLAARALALLALALALALALLALALA!
Things getting better (Score:2)
Sundays used to have massive lag, 1-2 reboots. Mondays were pretty much unplayable with 4-5 reboots a day. People in Ironforge disappearing, mobs not respawning, infinite loot lag, instances in limbo, etc, etc.
Over the past couple weeks Sundays have usually had one reboot, Mondays are fairly solid albeit a bit laggy. Gives me hope as far as their tech teams are concerned. Hopefully people
They themselves are behind in the times (Score:2)
Multi-user dungeons have been around for more than a few short years. Sheesh.
-
Somewhere between GPA and MUD lies obsession.
Blizzard shuns gay-ness? (Score:5, Interesting)
The virtual world offered (for a fee) to Blizzard's customer base, however removed from reality, is very much populated by real players, (script farmers notwithstanding,) which have a given sexual orientation, whether or not this fact is relevant to the actual game play. In this game, individuals will find all sorts of reasons to relate to each other and/or form guilds, possibly based on real-world geographical proximity, shared/anecdotal game history, stereotypical familiarity or whatever they might see as relevant criteria.
While playing the game, it didn't take long before I learned about fun things like the "/kiss", "/hug" and other such commands, and I also quickly confirmed that these actions were possible between any players, regardless of perceived gender or race. On the other hand, MSN Messenger's original emoticons assumed that a hug was given by a boy, and returned by a girl.
Which of these two services may be adding some restrictions of expression, knowingly or not, to its users?
Now, let us imagine that the next time I play this game, I should decide to form a new guild, or join an existing one, based on a common interest in photography. Which means that as we all wait endless minutes while everyone gets ready for the next raid, we can all chat about something we have in common, photography, something that others around us might be at least mildly interested in, and might even have something to share with the other guild members as well.
Obviously, if I simply lacked any interest in photography, I'd join some other group, or simply keep marching on my way, because in the end, I am playing this particular game in order to have a little fun, period.
STFU...U R a gafyag (Score:4, Interesting)
Occasionally one of the girls would forget to /tell and my cover would be blown in a party, and some male players that were shamefully hitting on me earlier would become enraged and ask for their (quite expensive) items back. Then they would regail me, accusing me of being gay... odd, considering they never objected to my 'girlfriend' coming along (who was indeed Brian, my very awesome, very straight roommate)
I hardly think that a change of Blizzard's policy is going to fix the social problem that permiates much of nerdom as thick as it does Alabama. Play who you want. On planet Warcraft, homosexuality is discriminated against. That is a role you choose to play or not.
Speaking of which, would a handsome man like you like to escort me as I try to find my epic?
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
While their broad advertising is unthematic, their existence is not.
Though, I'd imagine many dark age lands had no issue over killing these heathens. It'd be interesting if Blizzard said "thematically, the Holy Mother Church of Horde has decreed you heretics with no protection under the lawsys"
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
What?!? Because it features the use of swords and plate armor prominently, it's "based on" medieval times? Nice try. What about the magic, orcs, and undead guys? Medieval times on which planet?
It's a fantasy world. Owned and created by Blizzard. Period. Full Stop. End of parchment. If Blizzard can make magic 'work,' gravity go up, teleportation a science, slavery legal, and dead people sexy, they can make homosexuality anathema -- in their world. Play there, or not. Support them with your dollars, or not. If they can nerf your character's dexterity and strength, what makes you think they can't nerf your... whatever you call it. Lord knows there's plenty of competition for your MMORPG dollar. Come play Eve; in space, no one cares who you shack up with.
All these people confusing MMORPGs with reality are starting to scare me...
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:3, Funny)
I think I speak for us all when I say the word you're looking for is MOJO.
-stormin
(don't nerf my mojo!)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems as out of place as an AA meeting in a liquor store.
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
1. The club is untouched.
2. The club can advertise off-line.
The only thing they've stopped is in-game politicizing. What's wrong with that? If I try to preach my religion online and they shut me down - I'm OK with that (not that I would try to preach on WoW - EQ is where the field is ready to harvest)
-stormin
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
No, preaching religion is "Jesus Christ died for your sins so that you might have everlasting life. Repent from your sinful ways and join him in God's work.". What would be the GLBT equivalent of this?
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
People are obnoxious enough when you know them. People who are anonymous on the Internet are unbelievable. Fact of life. But the presence of a gay guild sticking out the inevitable abuse will only breed acceptance as people get bored with the bashing.
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Informative)
I think you misunderstand the case a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think you misunderstand the case a bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think you misunderstand the case a bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think you misunderstand the case a bit (Score:3, Insightful)
If he wants to go around accepting bigotry in the world, more power to him. I think he's a fucking coward.
Whether a guild is GLBT-friendly or not should not even come into account! Guilds shouldn't have to advertise it, because people shouldn't have to go around proclaiming it. You see people wearing "Gay Pride" items, rainbow necklaces, and all sorts o
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Wait a minute...you're telling me they turned homosexuality [thottbot.com] into an epic staff for priests? Freaky!
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past people weren't gay - they just either did or didn't have sex with members of the same sex. It was considered something you did (or didn't do) and not a matter of personal identity. The ancient greeks, for example, would probably not have made sense of the question "are you gay or straight?".
So it's entirely possible that modern homosexuality - far from being as old as the human race - is actually a fairly modern construct. Personally I think that the discinction between "gays" and "straight people" is largely artificial and that sexuality (defined as inclination, not as actual partners) is more of a spectrum than a binary decision. It's for social and political reasons that in recent history the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" have been applied to people and not to behavior or inclination.
Anyone know of anything additional about this?
-stormin
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Informative)
The Experience of Homosexuality in the Middle Ages [fordham.edu] by Paul Halsall, 1988.
Homosexuality [stanford.edu].
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
A. homosexuality as behavior
and
B. homosexuality as personal identity
I am of the opinion (albeit I'm no expert and have a lot to learn on the topic) that while A is universal B is a relatively modern pheonomena. Your own sources seem to corroborate this. Examples:
Homosexual sex was widespread in the Middle Ages and there is abundant information on what church writers and secular legislators thought about it.
Sex is the action, and has nothing to do with identity.
those we would now call homosexuals
Meaning that they weren't so-called at the time. Was this because of oppression - or was it because the idea of associating sexual preference with identity and not with just behavior had not yet arisen?
Very clearly there were distinct types of sexual activity in different periods and areas, but these activities do not seem to accord with any particular social organization of homosexuals:
Again - evidence of the action but not of developed identity-awareness. Subcultures may eventually provide evidence that this type of homosexuality did exist, but your articles haven't established that yet.
With the decline of the Roman Empire, and its replacement by various barbarian kingdoms, a general tolerance (with the sole exception of Visigothic Spain) of homosexual acts prevailed.
Again - they key word is acts. This is still the behavior-centric conceptualization.
The subtext throughout all of these articles is simply this: people were having gay sex in the middle ages, and they were having gay sex in the Roman era. That's fine and I think it's historically unarguable. Even the Bible refers to homosexuality going back to Soddom. So that's not in question.
But what these articles all discuss is the behavior. This is not the same thing as the socio-cultural identity, and that's what I believe is a recent development.
I'm not falling into the trap of thinking that people in the middle ages were somehow fundamentally different than we are now. Evolution doesn't work that fast. But modern societies do tend to have distinguishing philosophical trends and I think this is one of them.
-stormin
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a question of preference and of action. Say the question is "do you like strawberries?" You might like them, I might not (ok - who doens't like strawberries? but it's an analogy). So you like strawberries and you eat them. Do we have a name for that in our society? No - we just say that you eat strawberries and you like them. A movement? Not that I know of. An agenda for strawberry-eaters? Well, I guess to eat strawberries.
No consider a similar question of preference and of action. Do you like meat? Do you eat meat? In this case we DO have a name: we have vegans and vegetarians for people who don't eat meat (or animal products, depending on how hard core you are). If you happen to not eat meat one day - are you a vegetarian? If you're a vegan and you don't realize there's animal products in jello and eat it - do you stop being a vegan?
See what I mean? In this case we have a cultural identity that is based on an action or preference but then takes on a life of it's own. What I'm saying is that historically being gay was kind of like eating strawberries. It didn't mean anything other than what it meant. Now being gay is like being a vegetarian - it's not about what you do (or want to do) anymore - it's about who you are.
-stormin
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Being homosexual is just being homosexual. Not every homosexual bases their cultural and political philosophies on their sexuality.
Of course, some of them can and have been persecuted to the extent that their sexuality does become a personal and political is
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Not some of the ones which require special equipment ;)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Anyone know of anything additional about [sexuality being a recent construct]?
I think there's more information about it in Sexing the Body, a non-fiction book. It's mainly about gender constructs though, and it's possible I'm mis-remembering where I heard about sexuality being a recent construct from. But I'm pretty sure that book goes into some detail about how the definitions of sexual practices, sexualities, genders, sexes and the like have been created and shifting over time and between cultures (ev
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Of course they wouldn't have. Probably because they didn't speak english.
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
It's been known for a long time that some animals want to fuck the same gender as they
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Read the other posts in this thread. I'm NOT saying homosexuality as behavior is new. I don't care whether you're for or against it - the fact is that it's existed for all recorded history. What IS (possibly) different is homosexuality as identity/as culture.
I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that.
-stormin
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Funny)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think it's pretty safe to assume the same is true of articles outside my general areas of knowledge.
Comments on Slashdot are generally as reliable as the weekly world news, and about as entertaining. It's
Re:G/L/B Rights (Score:2)
Except nobody is making the requirement that LGBT people must be invisible and silent. They are just forbidden from making a club that intentionally or unintentionally excludes people of certain persuasions (i.e. straight people).
Does anyone know whether or not the guild did exclude straight people, or if they were allowed to join but just saw no point in it? That would seem to make a bit of a difference. Surely it would make more sense for a guild like that to include parents and friends of LGBT people
The "T" in LGBT Stands for (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The "T" in LGBT Stands for (Score:2)
Tolerant. It was a guild for people who were tolerant of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. No requirement to be a member of one of those three groups. You just had to stop using OMG F4G!!!!11!!one when someone ganked you.
Thank you for the information. In that case, it sounds like a really good idea for a guild! Why would anyone or any company be against a guild whose purpose is to allow people a haven from being laughed at? (This after someone else was upset at the guild for invading their escapism... it s
Rights? What Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rights? What Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is wrong, as a matter of fact. I realize that you are Canadian; but in the US, there are statutory limitations on the absolute freedom of private contracts, in addition to the common law exclusion of contracts contrary to public policy.[1] There are, for example, Federal laws prohibiting employment or housing discrimination on the basis of race; and state and local laws that also prohibit various forms of class-based discrimination. Some of these apply specifically to sexual orientation. At least some of these laws apply to business conducted with the public, not just that of public entities, like school boards.
The courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of these laws, on the basis that there is a compelling public interest in having a fair society. In fact, Colorado tried to amend its state constitution to prohibit any legislation protecting civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation. The US Supreme Court ruled that the state amendment violated the US Constitution.
[1] The common-law exclusion means, for example, that a contract to commit a crime is unenforcable. I would be very surprised if this does not apply in Canada also.
Re:Rights? What Rights? (Score:2)
And I have no idea if Canada is this enlightened, but remember that Blizzard is beholden to U.S. laws when it serves citizens of the U.S.
Re:Rights? (Score:3, Informative)
For the former, one could even argue that a GLBT guild is discriminatory against straight users. Assuming a "straights only" guild is against the rules, I have no complaint here.
For the latter, it'
Re:Rights? (Score:2)
Now, it must be assumed that RP servers are the most accurate representation of the 'lore' and 'environment' of WoW, since there are tons of people dedicated to achieving it. Now if they didn't want a gay image in the game, why would they suggest GBLT guilds the start up there?
If only I knew '
Re:Rights? (Score:3, Informative)
One could, but that would have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
The guild in question is GLBT friendly [guilduniverse.com], not GLBT only [guilduniverse.com].
If you still want to have a problem with their membership policies then you will also have to have a problem with _every_ guild which doesn't have a completely open door to everyone who wants in.
Re:Rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Blizzard is restricting people from TALKING about sexual orientation, be it their own or that of others, in certain circumstances. They're not denying gay people any sort of "service," because they don't know or care what the sexual orientation of thei
Re:Rights? (Score:2)
Finally this whole argument is pointless. Blizzard did not ban the people for having a gay guild in the game. The ban was for the advertising of such in game which normally will bring out biggets shouting back an forth and leads in undesirable conversations.
Re:Rights? (Score:2)
There are specific instances where this can be overridden. Any organization that takes federal dollars - for instance - can not discriminate. It's illegal to discriminate in housing.
But take a look at the Boy Scouts. They've been fighting for years to keep gay scout masters out - and so far they have won. Similarly there's no law that says that a company has to charge the same price to everyone. They can char
The right to drink beer with chicks (Score:2)
Actually, there are a whole bunch of businuess that use gender based pricing. Many bars have 'ladies nights' where cover charges are waved for women. Of course their motivation isn't to descriminate against men, it is to get more woment to come to their establishment.
Re:Rights? (Score:2)
And this makes sense how?
Re:Rights? (Score:2)
The fact is you're talking about a different situation. Even if a hotel is privately held the gov't may rule that it's a public service. This doesn't change the fact that the default position is "privately held organizations can discriminate". There just happen to be some isntances where the gov't has overruled this right (eg for services/products deemed public and for all organizations that receive federal tax doll
Re:People need to stfu (Score:2, Funny)