Gamer convention could leave Indiana over religious freedom bill

Print More

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(Reuters) Seattle-based Gen Con's Chief Executive Adrian Swartout said in a letter to the governor that diverse attendance is important to its annual convention, which it says has a $50 million yearly impact on Indianapolis.

  • James Carr

    Hogwash! How will the attendees be discriminated against? Is there going to be a mad rush of gay weddings during this annual conference? Have the bakers and florists been identified so gays can harass them publicly?

    The State of Indiana wants protection for those small businesses who choose not to compromise their morals. So we blackmail the state with a demand to follow the minority opinion, or else?

    The gay backlash can’t come too quickly.

  • Larry

    And watch how many big businesses flee Indiana or pass on setting up facilities there.

    How much money do you think the state is going to spend in defending this law in pointless litigation?

    I guess Indiana must be so endowed with funds that they can afford to flush money down the toilet to kowtow to theocratic discriminatory jerks.

    Discrimination costs. There is money to be made in not being malicious uncivil bigots.
    http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/economic-impact-reports-by-state/

  • Pingback: Gamer convention could leave Indiana over religious freedom bill - by Fr. Ron Gronowski - Rev Ron Gronowski - The Reverend()

  • Larry

    How wouldn’t they be?

    Religious excuses can be used to deny business to anyone for anything. Show me where in the bill it limits it to bakers and florists or pertaining only to gay weddings?

    This is a blanket license to make Christians above all consideration for civil rights laws. Why would it stop at being anti-gay. It can also be racist, sectarian or against the handicapped.

    The State of Indiana wants a right to ignore its own civil rights legislation and to create segregated businesses.

    “So we blackmail the state with a demand to follow the minority opinion, or else?”

    Yep. That is what civil liberties are. Forcing the political majority to respect the rights of a political minority and protect certain rights inherent to sane living. This is why you don’t appreciate nice things like democracy and rule of law.

    You want legalized discrimination, you pay the price for it. Literally.

  • Tom Downs

    Rash angry legislation often has unintended consequences. I suspect this is intended to cover more than florists and bakers. 99.7% of all businesses are legally small businesses.

  • James

    I don’t see how there is any discrimation at play if this bill passes. I believe it’s wrong to deny services to an individual on all common transactions (e.g., it is wrong to not sell people a roll, cookie, or a birthday cake just because they identify as homosexual). However, I don’t believe a business owner should be bound by law to proclaim or endorse a message that he/she does not agree with. For example, a wedding cake is used in weddings to celebrate the event. If a business owner does not feel right expressing a message of endorsement for a homosexaul wedding by creating a cake then why should he/she have to create a wedding cake? I believe one of the core issues here is that business owners or individuals shouldn’t be forced to embrace or proclaim any message that they do not agree with. If a customer asks a business owner for a service or product that proclaims a message that contradicts the business owner’s beliefs then he/she should have the right to politely…

  • Be Brave

    What a bunch of crap. None of these pro-homosexuals companies will be affected at all. If cummings diesel wants to sell their products to gay sex adherents and proponents then nothing has changed.

    If this were a law proposed by Muslims and Jews that didn’t want pork lovers to demand that halal and kosher deli’s be demanded to serve spare ribs at events run by pork eaters, the cry of protecting those religious businesses would be deafening.

    But Christians ask for protection from gay activists forcing the celebration of gay behavior (?) and they get hammered.

    Hopefully homosexuals can move on from their hatred of Christians. But that is highly doubtful.

  • Be Brave

    @James

    The point is, WHY the need for LGBT’s to force Christians to celebrate homosexuality?

    They wouldn’t dare ask a Muslim to provide pulled pork sandwiches at the same event.

    This is about homosexuals being mean, intolerant and hateful. AND, their demanding that Christians show obeisance to the gay community and gay culture.

    The same kinds of people that support LGBT’s ruling over Christians, would never allow the same thing happening to Jewish, Muslims, Hindu and Buddhists that have religious limits.

  • Larry

    You are simply trying to dress up a pig here. This is why Libertarian arguments are so stupid when the discussion is actual civil liberties.

    It still amounts to denying business available to the general public on the basis of personal prejudices of the business owner. It doesn’t matter how they try to put a spin on it. It amounts to segregated businesses. Denying open commerce to the public because business owners don’t like the customers for some arbitrary reason.

    For example a baker bakes wedding cakes for anyone who comes through the door and plunks their money down on the counter. It makes no difference whether the customer is gay or straight. The task is the same the money is the same.

    If business owners are not forced to be civil and keep their personal prejudices in check when dealing with the public, then commerce is restricted. The public is harmed. The personal bigotry of a business owner is not grounds to deny goods and services to members of the general…

  • Larry

    BB you are beyond ignorant.

    Of course they will be affected. Discriminatory laws drive businesses away, ruin reputations, tie up commerce, lead to greater use of public assistance, and lead to costly litigation.

  • James

    Larry, I’m sorry, but I’m affraid I don’t understand your argument. Do you feel that it is morally right for a homosexual business owner of a t-shirt shop to be required by law to create t-shirts that read “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman” if someone were to ask him/her?

  • Jon

    No one is forcing Christians to “celebrate” anything. If a Christian wants to open a cake store, they have to make cakes for anyone who asks. If they don’t want to do so, they can open some other kind of store. It is discriminatory for the Christian to refuse his product based on who the buyer is.

    If a Muslim wants to avoid making pulled pork sandwiches, then open a store that doesn’t do so. Would it be discriminatory for the Muslim to refuse to sell pulled pork sandwiches to Christian people, while he sells them to Hindu people? Of course it would be – and just as wrong as the cake store.

    But, here we have yet another case where a Christian wants to discriminate, and when their discrimination is pointed out, they say they are being “oppressed”. Sorry, but the people being discriminated against are the ones being oppressed.

    Even if this were only about cakes, that’s discrimination. And it’s not just about cakes anyway.

  • Jon

    James –
    Good example. To clarify, the T-shirt shop owner advertises that he makes custom T-shirts, and he does in fact make custom t-shirts regularly.

    Maybe I’ll change my mind, but on first pass, I think you are right – he has to make those shirts, even if he disagrees with the person ordering them (and the message).

    Does anyone see a reason why this is different from the wedding cake situation? I don’t at this point.

  • Doc Anthony

    If the gay-marriage cultists at Gen Con want to leave Indiana, they should just leave. Nobody’s forcing those Gay Gestapo boys to stay. In fact, tell them they better GIT !!!

    Gen Con is supposed to just be bringing lots of people together to celebrate and promote the enjoyment of gaming and technology. But like a Christian cross in the presence of vampires, apparently this Indiana religious-freedom bill has brought out their TRUE sicko identity.

    So now these Gen Con Cult Bums want to do last-minute **economic blackmail** on ordinary people, just because Indiana voters and elected officials have democratically approved a Religious Freedom bill? Really?

    That shows you why the Gay Marriage Cult is such a dog mess, Larry. They apparently don’t even believe in DEMOCRACY, let alone God.

  • Be Brave

    Larry,

    Well your accusation is not even rational. Anyone that is pro-homosexuality is not affected by this bill. This is simply an attack on Christians. THAT is reality.

    You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that homosexuals are being rude and hateful towards Christians.

    While I would bake the cake for anyone no matter their perverse and anti-Christian sexual behavior, I would make a cake for atheists and they are a people equally hateful and tyrannical towards Christians.

    I’m thinking that the Apostle Paul, a tent maker by trade, when he wasn’t in prison under a the bi-sexual Nero . . would have made a tent for anyone.

    But I’m also thinking that ancient Romans that hated Christians – like the hate that modern homosexuals have for Christians today – would have found products and businesses to use run by like-minded people.

  • Doc Anthony

    Not just “highly doubtful”, Brave, but “flat-out impossible.”

    It’s the nature of the beast. The Gay Marriage Cult is INHERENTLY, angrily opposed to Christ and Christianity. They know what the Christian New Testament, what the entire Bible, says about their particular religion.

    Constitutional freedoms of religion and speech, means NOTHING to the Cult. The processes of democracy, by which the Indiana Religious Freedom bill came about, mean NOTHING to gay marriage supporters.

    All they care about is winning by any means necessary — and if they cannot win, they’ll just settle for scorched-earth economic-blackmail against the ordinary citizens of an entire state. The gay marriage cult, is a VERY unpleasant religion.

  • James Carr

    I have never heard of gay people being denied any kind of service in Indiana or any State. Who says, ” I am gay and I want an order of large fries”? No one sane..

    This law is a result of the legalization of gay marriages……not by the Church……but by the State. So this law does affect the valid moral beliefs of the religious. You can have a dozen donuts, but we can’t make a cake for your gay wedding. It is similar to the ancient Romans demanding that Christians bow or offer sacrifices to a pagan god……..or die. Many chose death because their individual conscious was repelled at the idea. Why didn’t they go through the motions and ask God for forgiveness later? Because publicly offending God was anathema to them. The Romans intentionally baited them just as the obnoxious gay army is doing today. Have they no respect for the beliefs of others? Is it “Gay is the way or you surely will pay” ? Make your own damn cakes.

  • Larry

    Because you are being dishonest in your presentation. James, you are trying to spin discrimination in business into more friendly terms. All the while ignoring the harm it causes to the general public and even government interests.

    We already know how such arguments played out in the real world and their effects. Your argument is THE SAME EXACT ONE people used to JUSTIFY racial discrimination in their small businesses. The effects of such legalized discrimination were wide, varied, harmful and served no legitimate purpose to society.

    “Do you feel that it is morally right for a homosexual business owner of a t-shirt shop to be required by law to create t-shirts that read “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman””

    If they make custom T-shirts, then of course. You are in a business where people put stupid messages on a shirt. Its a cross one must bear in such a field.

  • Larry

    BB, you don’t know the difference between a custom request and a regular order. So your argument is stupid.

    I am willfully ignoring any pretension that bigotry of any sort in business should have color of law.

    If you can’t stand the idea that your business might have to serve gays and treat them like every other customer, don’t go into business in the general public. Advertise in your church, work through an exclusive membership club, don’t use a brick and mortar store open to anyone who just walks in. Because obviously you can’t be civil enough to engage in normal business.

  • Larry

    “I have never heard of gay people being denied any kind of service in Indiana or any State.”

    But you support the right for businesses to do so. If your moral beliefs involve supporting discrimination in open commerce, they aren’t worth jack.

    Segregation:
    -God says so
    -Freedom of association
    -State’s rights
    -Separate but equal (they can always go to the black owned stores)
    -Its my business, I can serve who I want

    “Religious freedom restoration” acts
    -God says so
    -Freedom of association
    -State’s rights
    -Separate but equal (they can always go to the not christian d-bag owned stores)
    -Its my business, I can serve who I want

    Nothing similar at all. No sirree. The two are nothing alike

  • Shawnie5

    “WHY the need for LGBT’s to force Christians to celebrate homosexuality”

    Because they are not persuaded in their own consciences of the rightness of their actions. That is where all craving for the “affirmation” of others comes from. And the irony is that even if they bullied every last Christian on the face of the earth into “affirmation” that still would not end the rage and frustration. Because its source is spiritual, not material or social.

  • Larry

    I can’t help it if ridiculous bigotry in commerce is harmful to the economic interests of a state. That is just the unintended consequence of incivility. It stunted the economy of the South back in Jim Crow. It will be harmful to Indiana.

    If this law was in Idaho, a state with a large “Christian Identity” population, this exact law would be used to keep you from patronizing businesses. A business could hang a sign which says, “As believers in White Christianity, we refuse to serve people of color”. You would be up in arms (or not, you don’t really seem concern with civil liberties).

    You obviously do not believe in democracy, civil liberties or rule of law. You want Christians to be exempt from the same rules that apply to everyone else.

  • James Carr

    Screw your interpretation of the Constitution…..the voters freely opted for this.

  • Shawnie5

    Let them have the wedding industry already. No monumental loss.

  • Larry

    Your “conscience” involves malicious harm to others. There is nothing moral about discrimination in business. It is a harm to the public lacking in any rational purpose.

    If you think your Christian belief encourages such behavior, it speaks badly of your religion’s view of morality. Don’t ever bother me with talk about “Judeo-Christian morality”. Your take on it is worthless and harmful. The moral Christians are the ones speaking out against this law, not supporting it.

  • Larry

    EVERY discriminatory law ever was passed by a majority vote.

    We have the 14th Amendment’s clause of “Equal protection under the law” precisely to deal with such things.

    The Bill of Rights exists not to protect the power of the majority vote, but to keep it from attacking the minority interests.

    Its nice to know you have conceded any kind of pretense that this law abides by Constitutional notions of civil liberties. 🙂

  • Shawnie5

    Absolutely…this is nothing new. Even aside from the demand for emperor worship, the early Christian faced many economic hurdles in the practice of their trades as well, since there were tight trade guilds, organized around the worship of specific gods, in which they of course could not participate. All we have to do in the here and now is abandon the non-essential wedding industry and the problem goes away. Of course it isn’t fair, but Jesus didn’t promise us fair.

    There will always be reprehensible people who wish to force violations of conscience upon others–but I take that, at least, as a sign that their consciences are not completely dead and buried but still putting up a faint fight. Remember Saul/Paul.

  • James

    The market place operates with both customers and business owners, and we should focus on the absolute core point of this debate that our society is currently wrestling with. It think it’s very important we get this right. We have to ask the question of whether or not it is moral to force business owners to create, write, speak, or endorse messages that the don’t believe in or goes against their identity. Offering goods and services is one thing, and business owners should never deny individuals of these items based on their identity (it sounds like everyone agrees here). However, if a customer is asking a business owner to deliver a message by using a product the business owner sells or a service he/she offers then I believe the business owner should not be required by law to deliver the message if he/she does not wish to endorse it. He/she should have the right to politely decline or refer them to someone who will be happy to deliver the customer’s message for them.

  • Shawnie5

    There is nothing moral about deliberately seeking to force a violation of conscience upon another–not for any need or desire for their “commerce” but for the sake of spite. You guys have lied about the true motivations and goals since the very beginning and have shown your true colors EXACTLY as the less naive and gullible expected that you would.

  • Larry

    You don’t get to use your religion as an excuse to harm others and society at large. If you can’t abide by things such as civil liberties and open commerce, then find something else to do.

    If it is far too unconscionable to treat customers alike in a civil manner and not engage in discrimination, then opt out like a good Christian. Don’t go into open commerce. Save your soul through selective advertising, membership access and limited marketing. Nobody says you have to open your business to the general public.

    You don’t get to impose on others in service of your faith.

  • Larry

    The rights of business owners are always subject to various kinds of controls and regulations. It is never absolute. Government has the power to regulate commerce for the public interests. Such controls are everything from statutes for contract construction, health & safety rules, licensing, business entity types, taxation, and civil rights laws concerning treatment of customers. All done with the rational and secular purpose of protecting the open nature of commerce.

    A customer doesn’t have a right to make special requests of a business owner, but that is not what we are talking about. It is a strawman argument.

    It is not a special request to do the same act one normally does in business, just because the customer is different. We are talking about legalized denial of all goods and services on the basis of bigoted attitudes of the business owner.

    You are answering a question nobody is asking.

  • Larry

    If your “violation of conscience” is treating customers with civility, it is worthless. If you can’t behave in normal society like the rest of us, get the hell out.

    You are simply being a whinybaby and abusing the notion of acts of conscience. You are not Dietrich Bonhoeffer, you are David Duke.

  • Shawnie5

    There is nothing for me to “get the hell out of.” I am not a part of the wedding industry so no issue exists for me.

    Funny you should use the word “whinybaby.” The mental image I ALWAYS get when visiting threads like this is little Susie whining to Mom to make Bubby play tea party with her.

    Perhaps you ARE a bit clairvoyant after all. 😀

  • James

    Larry, responding to your comment above (since the thread became too long and I was no longer able to hit reply):

    “We are talking about legalized denial of all goods and services on the basis of bigoted attitudes of the business owner.”

    Do you think a homosexual business owner is “bigoted” (using your terminology, not mine) if he/she owns a custom t-shirt shop and he/she declines fulfill and order of t-shirts that reads “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman” simply because he/she does not want to endorse this message? Is the business owner a “bigot” (again, using your terminology) if he/she only declines to print this message but is willing to sell the customer another shirt he/she created?

    “You are answering a question nobody is asking.”

    Here is a question I’m asking: Do you think it is moral to force business owners to create, write, speak, or endorse messages that the don’t believe in or goes against their identity?

  • James

    Larry, responding to your comment above (since the thread became too long and I was no longer able to hit reply):

    “We are talking about legalized denial of all goods and services on the basis of bigoted attitudes of the business owner.”

    Do you think a homosexual business owner is “bigoted” (using your terminology, not mine) if he/she owns a custom t-shirt shop and he/she declines fulfill and order of t-shirts that reads “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman” simply because he/she does not want to endorse this message? Is the business owner a “bigot” (again, using your terminology) if he/she only declines to print this message but is willing to sell the customer another shirt he/she created?

    “You are answering a question nobody is asking.”

    Here is a question I’m asking: Do you think it is moral to force business owners to create, write, speak, or endorse messages that the don’t believe in or goes against their identity?

  • Larry

    I think you are making up nonsense hypotheticals to avoid discussing the topic. I don’t see a legitimate concern anywhere in your arguments.

    I already answered your question, you just didn’t bother reading it.

    There is no right to discriminate in your business based on personal bigotry, period.

    If you make custom products, you have to deal with whatever “messages” the customer wants within practical concerns. So the mythical gay t-shirt seller would be wrong in refusing the request.

    Your argument is strawman crap since the subject is not custom goods and services but a denial of ALL business based on bigotry against the customer.

    “Do you think it is moral to force business owners to create, write, speak, or endorse messages that the don’t believe in or goes against their identity?”

    HELL YES IT IS MORAL TO “FORCE THEM”!!!! Open commerce is open to all. You are open to the public, you serve the public. You want to discriminate, take yourself out of open…

  • Garson Abuita

    It’s different because the baker-florist cases are about gay customers being denied the same service offered to straight customers. There is no issue of forced speech. Test cases already have been popping up in this regard, such as the man who asked a Denver CO baker to make Bible-shaped cakes with the words “God Hates Gays” on them. The case is destined to fail because the baker wasn’t refusing to sell him a cake.

  • Julian Penrod

    The classic appeal to the mendacious over the moral, by interests that cater to the malignant, not the ethical.
    Once again using a threat of losing funds unless the will of the foul is followed. Trundling the old saw, “Money makes anything right”! And, yes, those who would use money to try to circumvent righteousness are, indeed, foul.

  • The Great God Pan

    “How will the attendees be discriminated against? Is there going to be a mad rush of gay weddings during this annual conference?”

    The text of the bill says nothing about weddings or gay people. It allows religious people to ignore all non-discrimination laws.

  • James

    Valid points, I see where you are coming from.

    Agree:
    If a business owner denies ALL business to a customer because of the customer’s identity then this is wrong and there should be laws to prevent this scenario from happening.

    Respectfully Disagree:
    You feel that business owners should be forced to proclaim and endorse messages that he/she does not believe in or goes against the business owner’s identity. However, I believe that a business owner (or business) should be allowed to deny a request to proclaim or endorse a message with his product/service if the customer asks the business owner to do so. This is a very important distinction. It is wrong for business owner to deny selling a customer any goods or services because of the customer’s identity, and it is equally as wrong for anyone (or the law) to force business owners to broadcast or endorse any message that an individual customer would like to proclaim.

  • Larry

    I don’t believe you have a genuine concern for one minute. Because one does not need the protection of new laws to avoid special requests which are patently unreasonable. Simple contract law/legal principles of commerce cover this already.

    Your point is still nonsense, language such as, “forcing business owners to broadcast or endorse any message that an individual customer would like to proclaim”, are used to endorse discrimination of all business based on the identity of the customer. It is not a statement made in good faith. Its a bullcrap phrase to put discrimination in a more positive light.

    The need to avoid discrimination is far more important an interest to society than a business owner looking to avoid a civil response to a hypothetical unreasonable customer which is already covered under the law.

    The only purpose of the Indiana law is to deny ALL business to customers because of the customer’s identity. Claiming otherwise would be an outright lie.

  • James

    Larry, I understand your passion, but I think you are reading past the heart of the bill. The business owners do not have an agenda to discriminate against customers based on their identity nor will this bill allow them to do so. Indiana bakery owners would like to humbly and graciously serve the homosexual community while continuing to serve their Lord. If they are forced to endorse messages (using wedding cakes) that cause them to deny their Lord then why would a homosexual customer want to force them to make that decision? If all customers are treated equal and business owners have the ability to decide which messages they proclaim or endorse (the key being a message and not simply common goods and transactions) then this is a win-win. The customers will be protected because they will continue to receive their goods and services and the business owners rights will be protected because he/she does not have to be obligated to support messages that go against their core being.

  • Candy

    Bottom line- Gay people are real! They exist. They are not a cult & homosexuality is not a choice. By virtue of their existance in the world they deserve to be treated with honor, equality & respect! I have no problem with Christians practising their beliefs but they are not entitled to alter the truth. Remember that the KKK used their ‘Christian faith’ as an excuse to call African Americans ‘animals’ therefore ‘justifying’ slavery. You can either focus on the aspects of Christianity that focus on love & respect or you can use it as a tool for hatred. Trust me, most gay people are just living their lives-trying to be happy. All of the anti-gay commentators here are angry & for what purpose? How are you being victimized? Are you thrown out of your house for who you are? Are you bullied & beaten from grade shool until Graduation? Are you afraid that if you don’t act ‘straight’ enough in public you’ll be followed & assaulted? Are you turned away when…

  • James

    Larry, some of your views are caring and others you should reconsider more. It sounds like (from reading all of your posts) that you are trying to push some type of agenda rather than have a discussion on how we can better allow everyone in society understand each other and gain a mutual respect for each other. I will continue to voice my caring opinion that no customer should be discriminated against because of their identity, and business owners should not be forced to endorse a message that the don’t wish to proclaim or forces them to deny their own personal identity. I believe forcing people to deny their identities is heartless on both sides of the issue, and I know there are millions of others in American colleges, universities, and the workforce who stand with me in this viewpoint.

  • Shawnie5

    James, you are very reasonable and clear-sighted, but don’t waste too much time trying to reach common ground with Larry. She is firmly in the freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee camp. Religious liberty (of others), at the very top of our forefathers’ list of concerns, is at the absolute bottom of hers.

  • Larry

    “business owners should not be forced to endorse a message that the don’t wish to proclaim or forces them to deny their own personal identity. ”

    Which in plainer, more honest terms, as it is frequently employed, means, “I WANT TO DISCRIMINATE IN ALL FORMS OF BUSINESS”. That is how the phrase is used. You are lying if you think it is used otherwise.

    Why shouldn’t business owners be forced to treat customers like people at all times? Bigotry is supposed to be suppressed in civil transactions and business. It has no place in the open marketplace and discrimination is a harm to society. Bigotry doesn’t become acceptable by calling it religious belief. Neither does discrimination.

    If bigotry is a core part of your identity to the point where you cannot act civil to others, then you don’t belong in open business. If you have to be “forced” to treat all customers with respect, then so be it. That is the price of open markets and civil relations with one another.

  • Larry

    “he is firmly in the freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee camp”

    Said the woman supporting measures to permit discrimination commonly employed by members of her faith.

    Shawnie, you are irony-impaired.

  • Shawnie5

    Not at all. I’ll treat you exactly as I would want to be treated. If you don’t wish to participate in any given event in my life I’ll be happy to leave you in peace. And I won’t even sue you over it. Isn’t civility grand?

  • Candy

    I think it has to be mentioned that in many states similar legislation is NOT being passed. In other words if you’re a photographer, baker etc… you have to serve all- it’s your job! Once the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage this will be a moot point. State Laws will not trump Federal Law. So this Indiana law will just end up getting reversed. Plus once the state starts losing business revenue no one will tolerate it.

  • Candy

    BTW nobody is asking for affirmation from you! What hubris you have to think that your opinion on Marriage would matter in someone else’s life. This is about stopping discriminatory laws. Stop using the mask of Christianity to hide your bigotry and racism. We see you.

  • James Carr

    ……and Lord knows we see you. Oh, to be blind!

  • Candy

    Ah…now there’s the real you! Most Christians could care less about gay people but some of you…way too concerned and full of hate.

  • Let’s see, the issue at hand is that a claque of convention organizers object to merchants being exempted from a coercive state statute that said merchants find objectionable.

    And we have 18 complaints from an adolescent whose signatures (aside from bad manners) are an incapacity to parse or comprehend what is said to him with any degree of reliability and an incapacity to understand that other people might have interests and objects that differ from any he might entertain. I’m sure there’s a clinical name for that…

  • Shawnie5

    That’s not what your buddies have been saying from the beginning:

    ”The goal prior to the AIDS crisis was to get the government out of our lives,” said Jeff Levi, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. ”Now, because of AIDS, we are asking the government to help save our lives. The objective of the movement is no longer just to seek a right to privacy, but also to get the government and society to affirm our lives just like they do for heterosexuals.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/10/us/amid-aids-gay-movement-grows-but-shifts.html

  • Larry

    Think about how many lives could have been saved back then if not for Christian bigots hamstringing all efforts at dealing with the disease. Their blood is on Christian hands. You wanted them dead back then, still do.

    “Christians have no problem serving gays in any other context.”

    That is not what your buddies have been saying in the beginning. You don’t even believe that. You are such a bad liar.

  • James Carr

    AIDS has received an inordinate amount of money and research for the cure, as opposed to more deadly diseases that have been with us for ages. Yes, it’s a horrible disease, but it’s growth is largely due to unsafe sex. I’ve read where the progress in AIDS treatment has not changed the sexual behavior of gay males….now knowing there is treatment for it. What kind of morality is that? It is a communicable disease that would evaporate if gays were more responsible. So why should cancer, diabetes, or MS research suffer?

  • John

    LOL Wut?!

  • shawnie5

    Kindly refrain from telling me what I believe. I meant precisely what I said.

  • The Great God Pan

    “I have never heard of gay people being denied any kind of service in Indiana or any State.”

    Last month a doctor in Michigan, Vesna Roi, refused to treat a baby because the parents were lesbians. Now you have heard of it and can stop using that line.

  • Larry

    Civil rights legislation is coercive?

    I guess if you are a supporter of discrimination of all types in businesses it can be seen as a bad thing. It must so terrible for bigots. They would have to treat all customers like reasonable people. Oh the horror! Save me from having to act like a civil sane human being.

    Have you thought about working as David Duke’s speechwriter?

    “incapacity to understand that other people might have interests and objects that differ from any he might entertain”

    Its called being Art Deco. 🙂

  • Julian Penrod

    This may end up removed or not even printed. This may be seen only by the editorial staff of Religion News. I may end up banned for saying this.
    I tr4ied to place a comment demonstrating a number of qualities universal in homosexuals that are also consistent with homicidal sociopaths. I was contacted that the comment was not printed and that it violated rules including “refraining from ethnic slurs” and not engaging in “homophobia”. “Homophobia” apparently being “defined” to include legitimate and provqablr statements that are true but not laudatory of homosexuality.
    It is, apparently, permitted to criticize coprophilia, necrophilia, literal bestiality, multiple marriage, incest, child rape, but not homosexuality. By the very nature of the stipulations, you are also allowed to criticize those who make statements offensive to blacks and homosexuals.

  • Julian Penrod

    By the very nature of the stipulations, you are also allowed to criticize those who make statements offensive to blacks and homosexuals. Therefore, Religion News is not against intolerance, they only have a particular favored collection of groups whom they permit no criticism of and a group of individuals against whom they promote utmost intolerance.
    But just because something is a way of living, even of a sizable group of people, even a sizable group of people with a provable hammer lock on “government”, does not automatically make it wholesome or ennobling or nor self destructive! Will Religion News condemn statements made against rape simply because many people engage in it on a regular basis?

  • Julian Penrod

    And, face it, in their insistence that no one criticize homosexuality, is Religion News going to say that homosexuals commit no trenchant acts? And, face it, legitimate criticism, even if it is offensive, and offensive toward a group with a hammer lock on political power, is not wrong. And preventing it is literally spitting in the face of God. God, remember, stands for truth, not craven kowtowing to a powerful politically connected group.
    It should be mentioned, too, that, in fact, it is not possible to engage in homophobia since that does not exist. It is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. What’s more, distaste and seeing fault that is provably there is not “irrational fear”. The word itself is an eminently illegitimate hybrid of Latin and Greek, intended to engage in the malignant tactic of trying to dissuade discussion and understanding by threatening to invoke insanity.

  • Julian Penrod

    The word for fear of homosexuals, in fact, would be arsenokoitesphobia. The fact that pro homosexuality forces do not use this term is revealing. They seek to tailor their message only to the dim witted, those who they know would not be able to pronounce the correct term, much less remember it! Honorable people would use honorable methods, individuals who seek to approach only those incapable of pronouncing words of more than three simple syllables or three letters each are not honorable.
    It will decide the nature of this site, what path the editors choose. It will reveal the nature of what they term their conscience.

  • Pingback: "Christian Group Is Ready To Boycott Indiana If Governor Signs ‘Religious … | GLBT411()

  • Shawnie5

    Whether the SCOTUS legalizes gay marriage is unrelated to the issue being discussed. Different entities (state vs. individual) and different constitutional clauses are involved.

  • Shawnie5

    So Larry hates freedom of speech as much as she hates freedom of religion. Big surprise there — not.

  • Joe

    Gen Con meeting standards sounds like anti perversion religious freedom protection.

    Standards for Gen Con
    1. Profanity—The gratuitous use of profanity and symbols considered vulgar by contemporary standards of a product’s target market is not acceptable unless integral to a character or story. At the sole discretion of Show Management, such material may not be advertised, displayed, or sold at Gen Con.
    2. Violence and Gore—Products depicting lurid scenes of excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, filth, sadism, or masochism, presented editorially or graphically, are unacceptable. Products featuring depictions of unnecessary violence, brutality, physical agony, and gore, including but not limited to, extreme graphic or descriptive scenes presenting cannibalism, decapitation, evisceration, amputation, or other gory injuries, may not be advertised, displayed, or sold.
    3. Sexual Themes—Displays containing items and/or sexual themes are not permitted. Products…

  • Veronica

    Shawnie5, speaking of monumental losses, how’s that intense weight loss program going, hefty?

    You’ll still be intellectually punching way below your bodyweight if it succeeds, but you’d better not shirk on the treadmill time. Gluttony is a sin, even for a big he-woman like you!

  • Pingback: Indiana Governor Plans To Sign Pro-Discrimination Bill Into Law | The Ashford Zone()

  • Billysees

    Be Brave,

    “Hopefully homosexuals can move on from their hatred of Christians.”

    The inverse can apply.

    Hopefully, Christians can move on from their hatred of homosexuals.

  • Billysees

    Candy,

    “You can either focus on the aspects of Christianity that focus on love & respect or you can use it as a tool for hatred. ”

    Perfectly, perfectly said.

    I would also add —

    It is ‘better’ NOT…to do anything…that will be considered unfriendly to others. So whatever you believe about anything, keep between yourself and God…….Romans 14:21-22

  • ” I meant precisely what I said.” -which is part of how we know that you don’t understand what you claim to believe.

    And re “Kindly refrain from telling me what I believe.”, your attempt to stifle criticism of your dogma has been noted, and is utterly rejected. And review the line above.

  • James

    Larry, why do you only clip some words from my sentiences in my posts and then use them out of context? This can lead to more harm than good for discussion. Please quote a full sentence at a time and then discuss briefly where you don’t agree (my sentences are not a lot of characters). A whole paragraph isn’t needed for a quote, just a whole sentience. Hopefully, this can lead to a healthy discussion where we can learn to improve society together and hear the hearts of both sides. Through interacting with you, I found that people who see the danger of requiring business owners to endorse any message that they don’t agree with need to be bold and comment more on both this thread and other websites. It’s clear that others who may hold the same writing style as you may need others to balance out the refusal to discuss how best improve and shape society and people in it. I’m going to encourage all my friends and colleagues to do the same because we cannot afford to mishear each…

  • Larry

    James, there is nothing genuine about your points. I don’t think there is an honest discussion to be had here. You are really looking for excuses for discrimination in all business. I made my point very clear. You have been ignoring them. I see no point in continuing. You have nothing to say.

    Business owners MUST be forced to treat all customers in a civil manner. Religious belief is no excuse for not doing so. If a business owner can’t treat all customers alike with a measure of dignity befitting anyone who plunks money on their counter, they don’t belong in business. Their interests in discriminating are not worthy of protection under the law. Open commerce demands that people set aside personal prejudices and conduct business to the general public.

    Religious belief which compels someone to act in a harmful and uncivil manner is not worth respect or protecion. It is not a guaranteed right as free exercise of religion any more than human sacrifice. .

  • James

    Larry, I hear your opinion, but why do you dismiss the opinion of the other side of the issue without listening to their message? I think you hear their message, but you are not listening to their message. I strongly disagree with your opinion that business owners should be forced to endorse messages that go against their identity. If customers want to purchase goods or services that do not send any messages then they should never be denied service because of their identity. However, if customers choose to purchase products or services that voice messages then business owners should have to legal right to decline broadcasting or endorsing any message that he/she does not wish to endorse.

  • Larry

    No James I think your message is both dishonest and garbage. You are arguing from the POV of a sociopath. You want people to have a license to attack others without repercussion because that is “just the way they are”.

    If discriminatory conduct is part of “their identity” as business owners, go to hell. It is not worth protection under the law. Its not an interest society needs to take seriously. Its not religious expression, its just malice. It is harmful to the public and unnecessary. I see no need to treat that “identity” with respect.

    What you don’t get is ALL goods and services sold are considered a “message” to one who feels the need to discriminate. Your distinction is pointless.

    I don’t respect their “identity” because it is harmful to all, so I don’t care if they are “forced” to act in a civilized fashion to all customers. Civil society demands we reign in the urge to harm one another.

  • James

    Larry, I understand your opinion. However, my opinion falls in line with the founders of the United States of America where free speech is given in the first amendment, and the first amendment protects against forced speech. It appears that you don’t want to work towards making the American society better, but rather it appears more and more that you are trying to push some type of agenda. Again, let’s state our opinions. Your opinion is that the first amendment is all good unless it goes against your agenda. My opinion is that the first amendment is good for all Americans no matter what the circumstances.

    “If customers want to purchase goods or services that do not send any messages then there should never be denied services because of their identity. However, if customers choose to purchase products or services that voice messages then business owners should have the legal right to decline broadcasting or endorsing any message that he/she does not wish to endorse.”

  • Larry

    You have a ridiculous view of our rights. At best its warmed over Ron Paul or other Libertarian nonsense. Asking for a right to harm others without repercussions under the law. Civil liberties are an inconvenience and an act of force. Well they are. They force the majority to respect minority rights. Our Founders wanted it that way.

    Free speech is always limited by acts of tangible harm. Defamation, fraud and perjury, threats, are not protected under the 1st Amendment.

    Religious freedom was always limited by where it does harm to others. Your right to swing that cross always ended where it hits someone else.

    How is America society better with rampant discrimination in commerce?
    With giving people license to harm others under the guise of religion?
    It isn’t. Its made worse.

    ““If customers want to purchase goods or services that do not send any messages…”

    For the umpteenth time, no such thing. ALL goods and services “send a message” to one who…

  • Shawnie5

    You are welcome to criticize my views to your heart’s content. You are not welcome to tell me what I actually think or believe. That is not only presumptuous but it indicates that you are unable to rebut my statements and must instead set up a strawman that is easier to attack.

    Very rarely have I ever encountered a “progressive” who was able to debate without the assistance of strawmen. Lord knows we all have our foibles, but this is a particularly frequent weakness of the left.

  • Shawnie5

    Comment directed to John Simard. Why do comments go to the wrong places?

  • James

    Larry, it sounds like your opinion is asking for the same thing that you are insisting to prevent: “Asking for a right to harm others without repercussions under the law”. Business owners are people too (just like customers). Why should customers have the right to harm other people by forcing the business owners to reject their identity? A person who is Jewish is Jewish whether he is at home or at work. Why should a customer have the right to harm a religious business owner by forcing the owner to spit in the face of his beliefs and God by endorsing messages he knows his Lord is against? I don’t see how that is going to help society, but only hurt society. You have shown your hand and your angle is to divide and destroy instead of problem solve and build up. You try to play the fear card, but no one should fear because your opinion is empty. Please do not choose to discriminate under the cloak of “preventing discrimination”. Be more free thinking and less closed-minded.

  • James

    Larry, I know we don’t see eye to eye, but it’s important for all to voice their opinions (respectfully is always best). I’ll be nice and give you the privilege of having the last word 🙂

  • James

    Karry, I know we don’t see eye to eye, but it’s important for all to voice their opinions (respectfully is always best). I’ll be nice and give you the privilege of having the last word 🙂

  • James

    I meant to type “Larry” instead of “Karry”. Larry, please go ahead and have the last word if you wish 🙂

  • anthony

    This I imagine, much like the Starbucks debacle with accusing everyone in the country of being racist, and who does not love being accused of racism over a $3 cup of coffee? Well apparently 90% of America does not like being accused of racism by a company, we voted and Starbucks regressed. Simple case in point there are more Christians with money, then liberal LGBTQ fanatics. I say let Gen Con boycott, they may have just signed their own death warrant for attendees politically with their Anti-Christian, Anti-Democratic process statement. Liberals are right there are com consequences economically, such as I do not have to buy a game from a company that supports curbing the First Amendment, and supports giving voters the middle finger. Gay people represent less than 2% of the US. population Christians 80%, I think Gen Con has more to lose from Christian consumers than liberal LGBTQ consumers.

  • Pingback: Christian Group Is Ready To Boycott Indiana | All-len-All()

  • Pingback: Here are 7 entities that may boycott Indiana over new “religious freedom” law | FAVES.COM()

  • Pingback: "8 Entities Protesting Indiana’s New LGBT Discrimination Law" – ThinkProgress | Gay news()

  • Pingback: "8 Entities Protesting Indiana’s New LGBT Discrimination Law" – ThinkProgress | Gay news()

  • Pingback: "8 Entities Protesting Indiana’s New LGBT Discrimination Law" | GLBT411()

  • Pingback: "8 Entities Protesting Indiana’s New LGBT Discrimination Law" – ThinkProgress | Law News()

  • Pingback: Indiana Set to Lose Billions as Businesses Boycott State Over Anti-Gay Law | Occupy Democrats()

  • bbp

    Your mother should have swallowed you

  • Pingback: Discrimination | MS-IL Staffing & Packaging()