Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill 886
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.
Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone.
Sure they are. They (and you) want to take away people's freedom to avoid actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.
Maybe you have a good reason for doing so, but don't pretend that there is no restriction of freedom here. There is.
Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.
Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Congrats, you win the Internet Reductio ad Absurdum prize for at least several weeks with that one.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the courts have already said driving is a privilege not a right so the government can be arbitrary on it.
Personally, i do not care if someone drinks and drives. They will end up killing themselves or likely still be safer than people texting or eating behind the wheel. But is it really practical to invent a religion and compare it to one that has been around longer than the government and had influenced the world for centuries before? It seems a little silly to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us believe that the government isn't there to ban every single behavior that we find distasteful. That doesn't mean that we are "happy to help" encourage it.
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Bit of a strawman there. Nobody is saying people have to stock specific products for LGBT people - only that they have to serve them whatever they do sell. They can't refuse to serve them just because they are gay.
The coffee shop doesn't have to stock special gay tea, but they have to sell coffee to gay people in exactly the same way they serve it to everyone else.
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are no requirements upon the dress or other outward behavior of someone indicating their sexual orientation, and there are few religious groups where manner of dress is dictated by the religion in the United States, and there are not all that many members of those groups either.
The point of diversity-blind requirements is to keep many things beyond the control of the individual from bein
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The one the editor complained the most about was that the crew on the space ship I was writing for referred to the ship as 'she' and 'her'. I personally thought the object was stupid and rejected that change. Especially since there are re
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
What death threats? The example i gave was a statement not a threat. Its no different of a threat as "hands up, don't shoot" is.
Also pedophilia is illegal, advocacy to legalize it is not. In fact, any law barring the political speech of advocacy on it would be unconstitutional.
Evidently, it is not as easy as you think. Nice attempt to skirt the issue though.
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
You cannot compare a belief (bigotry) to human condition (gender, race, sexual orientation), so your analogy is fatally flawed.
However, the law doesn't have to change for a printer to choose not to print posters for the KKK rally, since the refusal is for the job requested, not of the person.
Umm... No. Your metaphor is broken. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law is in response to assholes making trouble and causing timid, straight-laced shop-owners to lose heaps of money. Instead of choosing another business to get their goods, the troublemakers insist on bringing grief to one shop.
Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies. This wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies."
Wow, you couldn't be any more ignorant.
"This whole subject has come up because a small bunch of homosexuals are trying to make other people miserable."
And an bigot as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, most of the "civil rights successes of the last sixty years" have to do with race, and race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonies.
Who do you think were the biggest opponents against civil rights issues for non-whites during the mid 20th century?
The same rhetoric about gay marriage was espoused back then, only it was targeting interracial marriage. Verses from the bible were even used to justify it as a "sin".
Christians, on the whole, have probably come to accept the idea that non-whites should be treated equally under the law, but that wasn't the majority opinion back in the 40's or earlier.
In 50 years it's not inconceivable to imagin
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 y
Re:Let them sell cake (Score:5, Insightful)
> While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument).
Business are not people, so stop speaking of them as though they have Natural Rights like you or I. Businesses are artificial constructs of a society and thus have to follow the rules of that society. Businesses don't get to decide anything, they are allowed to function within a certain set of rules and one of those rules is they don't get to discriminate.
Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
No.
Slavery is when one person is owned by another.
You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired. A real slave does not have the option of being fired. Learn what slavery really is.
Are you done with the emo, now?
L
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're free not to operate a store or restaurant if you don't want to serve everyone.
Says who? Which provision of the Constitution grants this authority?
Who determines which classes are protected? It's completely arbitrary.
If a person is denied service, what's their injury? The common law system (not to mention the US Constitution) requires an injured party to bring up a civil lawsuit. If they were extended a written offer to purchase a product, that might be an injury. But if not?
E.g. You want to force a photographer to to work an event they don't want to be at? And then I'm guessing the g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
So that means you think it's fine if a restaurant posts a sign saying "NO BLACKS".
Re:It works both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Make some noise (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Idle threats? (Score:2)
Put up or shut up. Instead of saying that the law will factor in to the decision making process, directly tell them that it will not be in Indianapolis or anywhere else in Indiana if the law is passed. Tell them that the law will automatically disqualify the city and state from consideration. And then follow through with it if not also try to get out of the existing contract should Pence sign the bill. Anything else is just an idle threat and won't be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Most hotel and convention contracts (and, I have dealt with such) have enough wiggle room in the "Force Majeure" clauses that they will be able to void them. (IANAL, and TINLA.) However, it is the deposits that would be at risk; they could be soaked up in fees, etc., as could things like hotel commission payments for the last meeting. For a sufficiently large meeting on an annual cycle, there is generally no or almost no time where there is not money either deposited or owed; those payments would be at risk
Gen Con? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gen Con? (Score:5, Informative)
Short answer: It's a tabletop gaming convention [wikipedia.org].
Re:Gen Con? (Score:4, Funny)
GenCon belongs in Milwaukee (Score:3)
Having been to GenCon 7 times in Milwaukee and twice in Indy, Milwaukee is the better place for it. Cooler weather, cleaner city, Giordano's pizza, and The Side Door. One year in Milwaukee I was headed back to the hotel at 2am, and all of downtown was filled with the deafening roar of 250+ bikes starting their ride to Sturgis... probably can't get that anywhere else.
I hope there is some vague "business environment" clause in the contract between GenCon and the Convention Center that could be invoked to move GenCon elsewhere sooner than 2020. The economic impact will be welcome anywhere it goes, and bigotry like this shouldn't be rewarded. I wouldn't be surprised if the bill was partly aimed at GenCon attendees anyway.
Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Would you mind pointing me to the people that want the government to force the convention to stay in Indiana?
Because I haven't heard a single person advocate that.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you're an idiot.
It's one thing to say "get out of my store you Christian moron". Because that would be illegal.
It is entirely different level of bullshit to say that in retaliation these people are free not to patronize the businesses of someone who reserves the right to say "we don't serve you black/gay/Chinese/fat people".
That's a bit lopsided, don't y
Regardless, This Is Asking for Trouble (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Right Enough (Score:2)
Arkansas also has one of these Religious Freedom bills, as well as similar southern conservative cowboy type things, and I think this is a natural progression after years of voters being told by the conservative media that our elected conservatives weren't conservative enough, weren't religious enough, and too open to compromise with the left, and too slow to respond to issues regarding immigrants and terrorists. Add to that a general sense of failure or lack of inspiration in the left regarding their own l
A Public Business Must do Business With the Public (Score:5, Insightful)
SSDD (Score:5, Insightful)
One More Time... (Score:3)
When you make decisions for someone else, you are not exercising your freedom, you are denying them their freedom to choose.
Re: (Score:3)
And sometimes people get together, and vote on certain decisions that take some freedoms away, in return for what they think is an overall improvement in their lives.
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Real marriages are the ones that give you a tax advantage/ health care saving/etc.
Re: (Score:3)
It always amazed me that (most) religions are fast to discard the former if the couple are from the same gender, but absolutely have no problem whatsoever with the latter if it's between a man and a woman, even when it's obvious there's no love. You know, tha
Re: (Score:2)
don't be a twit.
Yes, such a silly statement. After all, divorce statistics show that most people live happily ever after, right?
Try not to trip on that steaming pile of happiness on your way out the door.
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
The reality is that you *don't* have a right to run a business naturally. Natural "laws" like natural "rights" are a figment of our imaginations.
You operate a business at the sufferance of the community. Which no one likes to hear because it tells the truth that our liberties are limited.
Mostly the government operates to keep people from killing one another in the streets. Pissing off some segment of the population because you don't like them will cause that sort of fighting and the government needs to s
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
And a white baker should not have to serve a black customer, right?
WRONG!
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I understand the reasoning behind this since I've felt the same way in the past, but then this reopens the door to "Well we don't serve blacks at our restaurant, you'll have to eat somewhere else." Any privately owned business that provides services to the general public is not allowed to discriminate as to who they serve.
And seriously what's the big deal? A customer comes in and wants a cake, you bake cakes, why does it matter if you're baking a cake for a straight marriage, a gay marriage or even a bar mi
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
You may be afflicted with Christianity, but you should not seek to afflict others with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it isn't. The US constitution guarantees the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Freedom of association was inferred via a court decision from, somewhat ironically in this case, the NAACP v. Alabama.
Yeah, look. The legislation in question is horse shit. It's not made to redress any actual wrongs; it's window dressing meant to pander to a certain kind of social conservative. Further, it, pretty much by definition, allows for state sanctioning of particular kinds of discrimination whi
Re: (Score:3)
A Christian baker should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay "marriage".
Correct. Under the law, he doesn't have to. He can sell doughnuts, cupcakes, danishes, etc. instead. But if he offers wedding cakes to the public, then he has to offer them to the entire public.
Likewise, should a muslim photographer be forced to photograph it?
No, a Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding, because he always has the option of getting out of the wedding photography business. He can photograph dogs or nature scenes instead.
Freedom of association. It's in the Constitution.
The Constitution also gives the government the power to regulate commerce. The courts have ruled that ab
Re: (Score:3)
Because Christ's central message was "Fuck you, that's not how I want to rule the world."
Wait, no, that was HITLER'S message. I believe Christ's was "Love your neighbor as your brother."
Re: (Score:3)
But an atheist baker has to indulge a Christian cashier who think company policies don't apply to them. Because Evangelicals are fine with forcing involuntary service on everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't see a flaw. Except in YOUR logic.
There are things which are protected as a matter of law and you cannot discriminate based on these things. Then there are things which you CAN discriminate on. I say we let the free market decide on everything not currently enshrined in our laws about how to do business..
Allowing people to express their sincere religious belief in how and who they choose to do business with SHOULD be allowed regardless, as a matter of law. If you don't like how a business is
Re:Leave then (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
And the same libertarians in question would tell you:
Any law which doesn't also have an actual demonstrable victim (and "society" is not a victim) are immoral and should be repealed.
Re: (Score:3)
So you have no problem with a smelting company opening next door to your house? A garbage dump? Fat rendering?
Zoning is done for a common sense reason, one you obviously fail to grasp.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have a problem with it and I might even move away if it happens, but my moral convictions tell me that I have no authority to tell them what they can do with their land.
Re: (Score:3)
I've got a sneaking suspicion you've never, not even once in your life, had those particular moral convictions run up against your personal convenience.
Indiana won't miss them... (Score:3, Funny)
My guess is that the good governor thinks AD&D players are Satan worshipers anyways...
Re: (Score:3)
Pedophilia is illegal. Being gay isn't. Big difference.
And it's not just about producing something "gay" (e.g. a wedding cake with two grooms on the top). It also would allow discriminating a gay couple from buying a regular sandwich at a deli, or a drink at a coffee shop just because of their marital status. It's a license to discriminate.
Re: (Score:2)
But then, we're not talking about criminal activity here. We're talking about perfectly legal activity, and discrimination against people solely because they belong to a particular
Re: (Score:3)
Same as a business owner should have protection from not having to produce something for pedophilia if it is against their religion.
Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
Running a business should imply tolerance. If you are too blinded by your own religion to see that, have fun with the bankruptcy paperwork, because the world around you is becoming intolerant of this bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they do shoot -- http://www.thestar.com/news/cr... [thestar.com]
Canada has a no-fly list -- http://globalnews.ca/news/1801... [globalnews.ca]
And I'd take Obama over Harper in a heartbeat.
That said, hells yeah, big gaming convention in town? My kids and I would be all over that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring the convention to Toronto Canada, we don`t even have no fly lists, no Obama and our cops don`t shoot you - just give you a stern talking too.
Um... I hate to be the one to break this to you but [publicsafety.gc.ca]... Perhaps there are a few things you don't know about Toronto [nationalpost.com]. Or Canada in general [canada411.ca].
Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I may be misinterpreting your post, but it seems to me that you're misconstruing something.
Believing in the right to be an asshole does not mean that one agrees with the asshole. I feel that the famous Cake Incident shouldn't have been an incident at all. To me, the company has the right to refuse service. I disagree with what they're doing, but support their right to do it (and go out of business).
Same with flag burning. I think it is disrespectful, but people should be allowed to do it. Want to make blog
Re:I wonder how the Gen Con people would feel (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit.Seeing as you don't even know the meaning of the word
http://www.merriam-webster.com... [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: (Score:3)
For instance, I can specify that there will be no public sexual activity in my bakery, and I would likely be well within my rights to kick out anyone who breaks that rule, whether they're gay, straight, or "American Pie" reenactors.
I could likewise make a rule against trying to incite violence or hate, and I'd probably be in the clear to eject anyone that was doing
Re: (Score:3)
You are right. In some communities, it will be used to deny service to whites.
Re: (Score:3)
Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
Yeah, that's never been abused before... [images-amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)