TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

Put yer lawyerin' hat on!

web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/gender-sexuality/law_professors_letter_on_indiana_rfra.pdf

Druegar wrote:

Disbeeleaf wrote: I invited demons into my house, but damn it, none came.

Really? Because this photograph of you as a kid looks rather demonic...

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.

You're right. Maybe one was already there and it was me…..

Those are supposed to be eyestalks, not horns. They're getting harder to cover as my hairline recedes.

How do you embed a photo in a post?

jedibcg wrote: Wow I was surprisingly wrong about NCAA. They would be evaluating the Bill and it would factor in their decision not only for future events in Indiana but possibly even move their HQ out of state. Now it sounds like they didn't come right out and condemn it but still it is more than I expected from the NCAA.

I thought the NFL would release a statement first

From the recent letter from GENCON, it doesn't look like they are definitely pulling out based on this. They will invite positive and negative feedback from participants and it sounds like that will help make their decision.

Gen Con has said it takes about 5 years to take in bids and evaluate them. I would assume that means they are starting this year, maybe after the 2015 con. I can't imagine it would be easy or cheap to just pull up stakes and violate the current contract.

Mike Steele wrote: From the recent letter from GENCON, it doesn't look like they are definitely pulling out based on this. They will invite positive and negative feedback from participants and it sounds like that will help make their decision.

My impression form the letter though is that they are actively trying to court other bids now, and that this is hitting right at the start of their planning for the next term cycle. Also that they want to keep a close eye on any discrimination that does occur.

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: From the recent letter from GENCON, it doesn't look like they are definitely pulling out based on this. They will invite positive and negative feedback from participants and it sounds like that will help make their decision.

My impression form the letter though is that they are actively trying to court other bids now, and that this is hitting right at the start of their planning for the next term cycle. Also that they want to keep a close eye on any discrimination that does occur.

That's pretty much my impression also.

Mike Steele wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: From the recent letter from GENCON, it doesn't look like they are definitely pulling out based on this. They will invite positive and negative feedback from participants and it sounds like that will help make their decision.

My impression form the letter though is that they are actively trying to court other bids now, and that this is hitting right at the start of their planning for the next term cycle. Also that they want to keep a close eye on any discrimination that does occur.

That's pretty much my impression also.

Mine as well. Depending on how this con goes will factor in heavily (I assume). Though I have faith (maybe misguided) that the city of Indianapolis understands this better than the Governor does. Though it only takes one bad egg to ruin everything.

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: From the recent letter from GENCON, it doesn't look like they are definitely pulling out based on this. They will invite positive and negative feedback from participants and it sounds like that will help make their decision.

My impression form the letter though is that they are actively trying to court other bids now, and that this is hitting right at the start of their planning for the next term cycle. Also that they want to keep a close eye on any discrimination that does occur.

That's pretty much my impression also.

Mine as well. Depending on how this con goes will factor in heavily (I assume). Though I have faith (maybe misguided) that the city of Indianapolis understands this better than the Governor does. Though it only takes one bad egg to ruin everything.

Speaking of: to help avoid embarrassment for all concerned, I suggest we ask GenCon to have a placard by the information desk called "SB101 Establishments" or some such. It could list any bars, hotels or restaurants that intend to discriminate against anyone under the new law, and against whom.

And/or: a city ordinance requiring an 8x11 inch sign on or near the door of any such establishment, visible before entering, stating whom the business will not serve under the new law.

Then the LGBT folks can avoid the business in question. And everyone else can, too.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

MetaphoricDragon wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: From the recent letter from GENCON, it doesn't look like they are definitely pulling out based on this. They will invite positive and negative feedback from participants and it sounds like that will help make their decision.

My impression form the letter though is that they are actively trying to court other bids now, and that this is hitting right at the start of their planning for the next term cycle. Also that they want to keep a close eye on any discrimination that does occur.

That's pretty much my impression also.

Mine as well. Depending on how this con goes will factor in heavily (I assume). Though I have faith (maybe misguided) that the city of Indianapolis understands this better than the Governor does. Though it only takes one bad egg to ruin everything.

Speaking of: to help avoid embarrassment for all concerned, I suggest we ask GenCon to have a placard by the information desk called "SB101 Establishments" or some such. It could list any bars, hotels or restaurants that intend to discriminate against anyone under the new law, and against whom.

And/or: a city ordinance requiring an 8x11 inch sign on or near the door of any such establishment, visible before entering, stating whom the business will not serve under the new law.

Then the LGBT folks can avoid the business in question. And everyone else can, too.

Personally I would like something like this sign idea. That way people can make informed decisions on where to shop and those who do want to refuse service can deal with the consequences one way or the other.

However, the Indianapolis government did oppose this law and I recall reading that they have a local anti-discrimination law already in the books that they are planning to keep enforcing.

State law may superceed city law. If so, the city law would be void, so required signage may be the only option. I don't know. But it's more wu wei and would be easier to win than a head-to-head battle with the state. How could the governor oppose signs which are designed to make things easier for businesses and customers to implement his law? If you intend to discriminate, just own it and face the consequences, don't do it in the shadows.

Idaho is set up similar to Indiana in this regard. The state may have a law like Indiana, but cities like Coeur D'alene have local anti-discrimination laws that directly counter this. Thus far it has been upheld in every instance, including multiple attempts by the local Tea party and a particular local superchurch looking to push their weight around, to no avail.

i also have to say that I particularly like the idea of a sign stating who you will not serve, so that customers can choose. if it's your religion, you should not be too embarrassed to make your beliefs know.