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

And that is fine. I disagree. I don't think a business has the right to discriminate. We disagree. That is fine.

I am not certain why you think a shop owner should have 'more rights' than his employees though. Not saying you are wrong or right just curious about you drawing that distinction.

Chip Bowles 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

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.

I'd hardly take Jack Chick as an authoritative source on Christian thought. A very small subset of it at the very most.

And I'd throw in Arthur C. Clark's well known thought - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Yes, when I ask a bit of machinery or electronics to do a process, it will do so. That's not magic nor does it impinge on God's domain.

jedibcg wrote: And that is fine. I disagree. I don't think a business has the right to discriminate. We disagree. That is fine.

I am not certain why you think a shop owner should have 'more rights' than his employees though. Not saying you are wrong or right just curious about you drawing that distinction.

Because the owner determines how the business is to be run. If an employee can not operate under those rules, whatever they are, they don't have the right to over-rule the boss, and needs to find another job.

For example, a Jewish deli owner can decide not to sell pork. A Jewish employee can not get hired into an Italian restaurant and insist they stop serving pork sausage.

Thus, if a bakery owner says they sell cakes for gay weddings, no random employee can refuse to take the order.

Wouldn't that employee rights be trampled by the employer though? I am not saying I agree or disagree with this just curious on your thoughts.

No. They have a right to exercise their belief. They don't have the right to keep a job they cannot or will not perform, and the employer does not have an obligation to pay them for doing a subset of their duties.

Edit: now, if the business is large enough that the employer can accommodate the employee and still run the business (will the Jewish cook be comfortable doing the salad bar, and let other employees handle the pork), or in the bakery, can the employee bake cookies and work the counter, and we have someone else handle all wedding cakes, then maybe the employee can keep their job, the owner gets full value without changing their business model, and everything works out.

Harlax wrote:

Chip Bowles 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

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.

I'd hardly take Jack Chick as an authoritative source on Christian thought. A very small subset of it at the very most.

And I'd throw in Arthur C. Clark's well known thought - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Yes, when I ask a bit of machinery or electronics to do a process, it will do so. That's not magic nor does it impinge on God's domain.

Chick is clearly not a Christian authority[thank God] but it does make the point that some allegedly religious people hate gamers as well as the LGBT community and they could use this law as well

Agreed, Chip. But I wouldn't want to give them my money anyway.

Brad Mortensen wrote: 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.

You and I agree.

I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. I do not want to see businesses (especially bakers, since I have a strong personal connection with folks who bake) close up shop over this. It genuinely saddens me that people feel like they had to choose between their belief system and serving LGBTs. I very much want there to be a mutually agreeable compromise. I don't think license to discriminate laws are that compromise.

Druegar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: 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.

You and I agree.

I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. I do not want to see businesses (especially bakers, since I have a strong personal connection with folks who bake) close up shop over this. It genuinely saddens me that people feel like they had to choose between their belief system and serving LGBTs. I very much want there to be a mutually agreeable compromise. I don't think license to discriminate laws are that compromise.

Pshew. I'm going to hurry up and stop reading these threads while we're at a point of agreement.

Brad Mortensen wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: 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.

You and I agree.

I mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. I do not want to see businesses (especially bakers, since I have a strong personal connection with folks who bake) close up shop over this. It genuinely saddens me that people feel like they had to choose between their belief system and serving LGBTs. I very much want there to be a mutually agreeable compromise. I don't think license to discriminate laws are that compromise.

Pshew. I'm going to hurry up and stop reading these threads while we're at a point of agreement.

And Remember the easy point of agreement, IT IS ALL THE FAULT OF POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chip Bowles wrote:

And Remember the easy point of agreement, IT IS ALL THE FAULT OF POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is something we can pretty much all agree on!

From the time I learned how our government was supposed to work until this day I still believe something I said to be true;

"I think the biggest problem with politicians is that they feel like they have to pass new laws."

I would love to see a constitutional amendment that forced all legislators to go through ALL previous laws that have to deal with the NEW law they are trying to create. Then they would have to draft the NEW law to encompass all the old laws that are still relevant along with adding the new part they felt was so needed. After that they would have to vote on repealing all the old laws before they could vote on the new law.

It sure would slow down the gigantic wheels of government. Something that needs to be done so that the average person has time to get the F out of the way before they get run over.

Brad Mortensen wrote: Pshew. I'm going to hurry up and stop reading these threads while we're at a point of agreement.

Chip Bowles wrote: And Remember the easy point of agreement, IT IS ALL THE FAULT OF POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yyyyes, but who elects them...? It seems like We The People bear at least some responsibility.