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

Pstyle wrote: I hope Gen Con and True Dungeon come back to So Cal! My Life would be Complete!

Are you in SoCal as well?

Around Sacramento, but I'll make the drive!

I cannot imagine how expensive it would be for True Dungeon if Gen Con relocated to Southern California as the event has grown so much since the last time Gen Con was there.

disclaimer - not a US citizen.

relocating GenCon would be a huge task, so many of the 56K that attend are true locals, even with a short jump to another city, there would be a huge number lost, and can any other city in the area support such an endeavor?

that aside I do feel proud of Adrian and Peter for making the announcement in protest of the bill.

I know very little about the day to day life over there, and what effect this might have on people in general. I do know that on a personal level I would not support any shop that did discriminate.

The law, which is unnecessary, is meant to mimic a law signed by Clinton. The federal version forces an entity to prove that providing a service or accommodation provides an undue burden on an entity. One of the examples was a case where muslim inmates sued a federal penitentiary for the right to grow beards while that penitentiary had a policy against facial hair. The prison lost because they could not prove that a half inch beard was an undue burden. I do not believe that the Indiana version is meant to serve the same purpose, and should not be enacted due to the public outcry and potential for abuse.

I think SB101 may be partly an overreaction to situations like THIS where a woman is willing to lose her bakery and face bankruptcy rather than participate in a wedding (by baking a cake) that violates her religious beliefs. I think that qualifies as "sincere."

It seems like rational adults could find a compromise between the two extremes.

Here's the question though, when you are operating a business that is open to the public where do you draw the line on who you can choose to serve and who you can refuse to serve?

Kim Lindgren wrote: Here's the question though, when you are operating a business that is open to the public where do you draw the line on who you can choose to serve and who you can refuse to serve?

If you research the situation, it isn't that she refused to serve them at all. They were customers before, and the owner stated she'd love to keep selling them cakes and cookies. The one thing she could not do in good conscience was bake them a wedding cake.

That's the line. She was asked to PARTICIPATE in something to which she objected on sincere principles. If she had refused to serve them at all, there would be no defense. And that's why I said SB101 is an overreaction. (That was the basis for the Hobby Lobby decision. By making an employer pay for certain procedures, you force them to be participants. And forcing someone to participate in something that goes against their beliefs is a violation of THEIR rights, and the government can only do that if their is a compelling reason and no reasonable option.) As Druegar pointed out, there are a lot of bakeries.

And rather than be tolerant of and respect her freedom of religion, they chose to destroy her and her business, over a cake. So while I would have baked the thing, I believe that in this situation she should not be required to do so. And, in my opinion, what this couple is doing to her is much, much worse than her asking them to find another baker for their wedding. I think it's bad karma to begin a marriage with vengeance in your heart, but that's just me.

On appeal, I think the Oregon law will run afoul of the "Clinton law" and she'll be cleared, if she doesn't go bankrupt first.

You are correct. There are a lot of bakeries. However the bakery in question had established a prior relationship as customers with the couple. So they were good enough to sell anything to but a wedding cake. That's insulting.

Baking a cake is hardly participating in a wedding. I agree that her actions were discriminatory and insulting.

So this baker did she research everyone she was going to bake a cake for to see if she had any objections to their wedding?

You think telling someone to go to another baker you should be allowed to tell them find another religion?

jedibcg wrote: So this baker did she research everyone she was going to bake a cake for to see if she had any objections to their wedding?

You think telling someone to go to another baker you should be allowed to tell them find another religion?

No, telling her to find another religion would have been like her telling her customers to stop being gay.

It seems disproportionate to me for her to lose the business she's had for decades because she won't participate in a wedding that wasn't legal until a couple of years ago.