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

I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Brad Mortensen wrote: What I don't agree should be legal is for a business owner to give up 100% of their religion (a protected class) as a condition of self-employment. You apparently do. Agree to disagree.

Well - I think we value similar things, I think we likely put different priorities on these values and how to handle things when they come into conflict. In any case I'm glad we can have a reasonable discussion about it.

I was bullied in school because some people thought I was gay.

Sorry to hear that - no one should have to put up with that.

Druegar wrote: I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Sorry to hear that, and I agree. The Indianapolis City Council was working on drafting this proposal, which seems a very positive sign:

www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Proposals/Documents/2015/PROP15-120.pdf

We could just have all belts labeled 'Not to be used for disciplinary purposes'.

Wow. The Indianapolis Star. Was not expecting this from them.

www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2015/03/30/editorial-gov-pence-fix-religious-freedom-law-now/70698802/

Druegar wrote: I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Nor does anyone else on this forum, as far as I can tell

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote: I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Nor does anyone else on this forum, as far as I can tell

I am not certain of that. So the baker (since we keep using them and I do now feel bad for bakers because we are picking on them) can bully a gay couple by saying your money is not as good as John and Lisa's? By saying that I (the baker) don't value you the love that you share though it is recognized in this state (because you couldn't have a gay 'marriage' in a state that it wasn't legal in). Sorry I don't agree. I say it is bullying. It is certainly discrimination.

You may think it is right for a business to discriminate, I don't.

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote: I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Nor does anyone else on this forum, as far as I can tell

SNIP

I say it is bullying. It is certainly discrimination.

You may think it is right for a business to discriminate, I don't.

When you choose emotionally charged words, it's hard to disagree without sounding like a monster.
And you're painting me into a corner of black-and-right. It's more complicated. I'm saying SOMETIMES the law is too blunt to be applied mindlessly. The words "always" and "never" stake out an absolutist, and often extremist position that allows for zero tolerance, exception, or nuance. And that is the part of your position I have issue with. Remove those words, and I could probably agree with you.

Go back to my very first comment in my very first post. This is "irresistible force meets immovable object." Both parties have a constitutionally protected right. A person does not have a blank check to excuse every action under "religious freedom," nor does a customer have an absolute right to demand a merchant give up all of theirs. There is a line we have to draw that respects both sides.

And we also have to agree on a definition of "bullying." I don't think that what our baker did rises to that level. She took no stand and made no judgement on what the couple could do. (People do get married every day without cakes, after all. It's not a legal requirement.) She took a stand on what she was willing to participate in. (I know, you disagrees on whether a baker is a participant. Let's not keep repeating the same arguments. It gets boring.)

It's ironic that one of the most vitriolic attacks against religious people is to call them hypocrites when they do something others think is wrong, but you're willing to legally mandate them to be hypocritical, and you're upset when they resist.

Brad Mortensen wrote: It's ironic that one of the most vitriolic attacks against religious people is to call them hypocrites when they do something others think is wrong, but you're willing to legally mandate them to be hypocritical, and you're upset when they resist.

Well said.

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote: I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Nor does anyone else on this forum, as far as I can tell

I am not certain of that. So the baker (since we keep using them and I do now feel bad for bakers because we are picking on them) can bully a gay couple by saying your money is not as good as John and Lisa's? By saying that I (the baker) don't value you the love that you share though it is recognized in this state (because you couldn't have a gay 'marriage' in a state that it wasn't legal in). Sorry I don't agree. I say it is bullying. It is certainly discrimination.

You may think it is right for a business to discriminate, I don't.

Actually it is important to remember that this law (Which according to its earliest supporters) was drafted to allow people to escape the consequences of discriminating (in violation of court rulings or state or local laws) against anyone by claiming that to "serve" the person/persons would violate their religious convictions. In Gamer terms that is like arguing a fireball is a "purely defensive" spell because it prevents "things" from attacking you, as they will be burned to a crisp. Allowing people to act in public commerce has been, until this recent trend, fully crushed under foot by the Civil rights cases which allowed full integration.

Remember, this law can be used against all gamers unless you are of the pure history type. Found this old tract at

www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp Here is a quote:


The values of the game are not full of violence and death; they also engrain within the player an entirely different way of looking at life: what anthropologists call the "Magic World View." The concept of a spell is part of the magic worldview. Let me explain:
1. The Magic World View teaches that there exists in the universe a neutral force, like gravity, which is magic. In this world-view, there is no sovereign God; but rather the universe is run like a gigantic piece of machinery.22 Magic's application is the understanding of how to manipulate the universe to get what you want. The analogy would be of putting a right coin in the slot of a vending machine and pushing the button. You automatically get your candy -assuming you used the right coin and pushed the right button. The Magic World View is like that. If you know the right technology (spell, ritual, incantation, etc.) the universe must respond-just like the light must go on if you flip the switch. It is automatic, and almost scientifically repeatable. This view under-girds the spell, and is obviously different from…
2.The Judeo-Christian World View (i.e. the Bible) teaches, on the contrary, that the universe is in control of a sovereign Person, God. To get "results," He must be asked. This asking is what both Jews and Christians call "prayer." It implies beseeching from a position of inferiority. I am the creature, God is the Creator. Thus, it is more like a child going up to a parent and asking for candy, than getting it from a vending machine. The parent may say "yes," "no," or "Wait till later." Similarly, in the Bible, there is no way to automatically manipulate God to get what you want, because He is an omnipotent Person. Additionally, God says that magic is deep and abominable sin (see Exod. 22:18, Lev. 19:31, Lev. 20:6, Deut. 18:10, 1Sam. 15:23, 2Kgs. 21:6, Is. 8:19, Gal. 5:20, Rev. 21:8, Rev. 22:15).


Now obviously, these two worldviews cannot exist in the same moral universe. They cannot both be true. Thus, one cannot be a Christian and believe in the Magical World View without being some sort of hypocrite or deceived person. The reason is that in the "universe" of Dungeons and Dragons magic is neutral, and can be used by "good guys" or by "bad guys." It is like "The Force" in Star Wars. This magical morality pervades D&D, and it is utterly in opposition to the Word of God.


All I am saying is if you believe in your religion you should not work in businesses that put you in contact with situations that could violate your religious convictions. And if you do so do not ask for special treatment, but instead decide whether the world or your religion is more important.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote: I was bullied in school for being gay--by people with strongly held religious beliefs. I don't see why such behavior should be a legally protected act.

Nor does anyone else on this forum, as far as I can tell

SNIP

I say it is bullying. It is certainly discrimination.

You may think it is right for a business to discriminate, I don't.

When you choose emotionally charged words, it's hard to disagree without sounding like a monster.
And you're painting me into a corner of black-and-right. It's more complicated. I'm saying SOMETIMES the law is too blunt to be applied mindlessly. The words "always" and "never" stake out an absolutist, and often extremist position that allows for zero tolerance, exception, or nuance. And that is the part of your position I have issue with. Remove those words, and I could probably agree with you.

Go back to my very first comment in my very first post. This is "irresistible force meets immovable object." Both parties have a constitutionally protected right. A person does not have a blank check to excuse every action under "religious freedom," nor does a customer have an absolute right to demand a merchant give up all of theirs. There is a line we have to draw that respects both sides.

And we also have to agree on a definition of "bullying." I don't think that what our baker did rises to that level. She took no stand and made no judgement on what the couple could do. (People do get married every day without cakes, after all. It's not a legal requirement.) She took a stand on what she was willing to participate in. (I know, you disagrees on whether a baker is a participant. Let's not keep repeating the same arguments. It gets boring.)

It's ironic that one of the most vitriolic attacks against religious people is to call them hypocrites when they do something others think is wrong, but you're willing to legally mandate them to be hypocritical, and you're upset when they resist.

Brad I don't know why you think all my post are about you. They are not. I was commenting on Druegar comment. There was nothing directed at you. I am not attacking you. I did not say always or never. You have asked me to stop quoting you so I have, until you quoted me. I am not going to respond to your post further because I was not directing anything at you to begin with.

And I'm saying, you can't trample some people's rights because some insincere people might abuse it.

A woman might falsely accuse a guy of rape. A murderer may falsely claim innocence based on temporary insanity or self-defense. You can't just throw up your hands and say women need four male witnesses to accuse a guy, or eliminate self-defense as a legitimate defense.

I believe a shop owner (not every individual employee) should be allowed to practice sincerely held beliefs. If those beliefs are so restrictive as to make the business untenable, then I agree, they should reconsider the wisdom of doing it.