If Indiana legalizes homophobic discrimination, Gen Con's leaving Indianapolis

boing
41

There’s a British version of this whole hoo-hah going on as well.

(I think you’ll find, Mr Baker, that pretty much everyone taken to court wishes it had never happened)

There’s a bit of a cultural thing in some circles of British Evangelicals that seems to relish being seen as victims. I suspect it’s people equating being prosecuted for being dicks as witnessing their faith, much like the early church did. Only with fewer lions.

It would of course be perfectly easy not to make the cake. “I’m really sorry, we’ve got a couple of very big orders in that week, I don’t think we can fit you in as well.”

1 Like
42

Teapot presented two disparate concepts:

  1. We don’t have to tolerate intolerance.
  2. Religious persons are shit stains, and we should do as bad to them as they do to us.

I agree with the first idea. We should work insure that humans are treated fairly, and we should not allow discriminatory practices.

I disagree with the second, and find it incompatible with the first.

1 Like
44

I didn’t read the second part that way, if bigots want to hide the social-politics behind a church then that church being taxed is a perfectly acceptable conclusion. It’s quite simple, if you don’t want government/politics involved in your religious-social club keep it out of politics.

1 Like
46

I don’t believe that most of the politicians really care about sex or religion. It’s merely an issue that they can use to bring their backers to the polls. They stay in office on the votes of this constituency and quietly put through bills benefiting their real masters, the big donors.

1 Like
47

Are you hiring? Just curious for a friend.

2 Likes
48

UNICEF? Planned Parenthood? The Human Rights Campaign? You said I could include minor religious organizations, so yeah, they all qualify.

They are playing by the same rules as everyone else. Churches can lose non-profit status for direct political endorsement. The law isn’t different for them. If they have social causes… guess what? So do most non-profits. They just happen to be causes you disagree with. I’m not the one advocating for different rules for different groups, you are.

So would a lot of other revenue generation measures that aren’t designed to single out religious non-profits, just because they’re religious. In the United States- we have laws about that, and those laws protect anti-religionists just as much, if not more.

1.) So? Non-profit organizations can also raise billions of dollars to spend foolishly. This is not different.

2.) The IRS is not all-powerful. Did you know that you can take the fifth when the IRS asks you questions? People and organizations have rights. Do you really want to the IRS to start pinpointing specific religions to scrutinize? The rules also does not render those activities that you listed legal. The FBI can still get warrants, or use RICO to look at these activities and put a stop to them. The IRS is not there to catch people committing non-tax related crimes. It’s there to collect revenue, totally different process. I know, strange concept.

Really? The Vatican is bombing people? They’re advocating that people use bombs? News to me. Unless you think the United Way should lose its non-profit because a homeless guy spit on me once, this is a non-argument.

Not a responsibility. A moral responsibility, sure, but not a legal one. At least not for individuals. You don’t have to say shit to the police ever. That includes calling them to report a murder right in front of you. Organizations and certain professions are held to different standards, but that ultimately has nothing to do with taxes.

They can, as individual citizens. Otherwise, they risk losing their non-profit status. The CEO of the local non-profit hospital where I live votes. I’m sure he donates to his favorite candidates too. Meanwhile all those religious leaders pay income tax (often higher than average because they’re often considered self-employed), and so do their followers. The fact that certain people are influential for all the wrong reasons is a fact of life. Just ask Jenny McCarthy.

Non-profit status has zero to do with impact. That’s asking the IRS to make value judgements about what counts as “good work.” That’s a can of worms no one needs to open. You, too, are confused about the purpose of open books- if a church doesn’t have to pay taxes, why does it need to show the IRS anything? That makes no sense. What are they supposed to look for? The IRS is not a general crime-fighting outfit. They don’t exist to look for non-tax-related wrongdoing. It’s hard to find tax-fraud in an organization that doesn’t pay taxes. Believe it or not, at least in principle, we have to authorize the government to do things, and generally those things are supposed to make sense.

This is a discussion about the American state in which I happen to live, involving the governor that (ostensibly) works for me. Amerocentrism (Ameri-?) can be annoying, but that isn’t germane here.

Aaaand, I think that’s everyone.

49

Mentioning bokononism in this context doesn’t really work, to my mind. Hell, the fundamental truth of that religion is that religion, in and of itself, is nothing more than lies. While it’s not caveman ideology, the whole idea of the thing leans in the same direction that organized religion is bunk.

50

Taxation is not inherently a punitive endeavor, but it’s not exactly a new idea that the power to tax caries with it the power to destroy.

Daniel Webster and John Marshall both said pretty much the same thing in the rather important case of McCulloch v. Maryland.

51

Believe me, it isn’t. For one thing, we have a local charity called Send a Cow that - yes - sends cows to undeveloped African countries. Uganda is on the list, Indiana isn’t.
It sounds as if what is needed is a new charity which would benefit Indiana. It could be called “Send a clue”.

3 Likes
52

Can I put up a sign in my business saying that it goes against my deeply held spiritual beliefs to serve anyone who supports this legislation?

Well, since I’m UU, it actually is my sincerely and deeply held religious belief that discrimination is an abomination, and it would be offensive for me to offer any sort of support to anyone who supported that type of legislation. Perhaps a policy that if you are sporting any sort of religious paraphernalia (eg. cross, headscarf, high hair and poofy sleeves) then you must swear on a bible that you do not agree with this type of legislation?

3 Likes
53

I don’t have a horse in that race. Tax 'em, don’t tax 'em, I don’t care. I’m just against the concept that we can fight their intolerance with intolerance of our own.

54

PROFILING!

55

This all sounds very familiar. Back when I lived in Cincinnati, they passed a nearly identical law which specifically removed sexual orientation (or implied sexual orientation) from protected class status. It made it quite legal to discriminate against people for the perception of their sexual orientation.

Several major conventions pulled out instantly, because they didn’t want any possibility that their con-goers could be discriminated against. The city lost about 50% of its convention business.

The result of this was that within a few years, many restaurants and stores downtown closed; conventions made up so much of their business that they couldn’t stay afloat. With fewer restaurants, fewer people bothered going downtown. Nobody wanted to live downtown, because there wasn’t anything to do anymore. Five years after passing the law, the downtown area was a ghost town after 5pm

The law was repealed. The city took quite awhile to recover.

8 Likes
56

[quote=“Brainspore, post:12, topic:54332”]
One of the things that the people who support this bill never seem to have considered is that there are other religions than Christianity.[/quote]

Fun fact: the original RFRA–the Federal one, that was co-drafted by the ACLU, passed a bipartisan Congress unanimously but for three dissenting Senators, and was signed into law by Bill “cigars and interns” Clinton in 1993–was drafted because of a SCOTUS decision that said Native Americans did not have the right to use peyote in their religious rituals because drugs are illegal for everyone.

Sadly, Indiana added on the same provisions that Arizona legislators tried to add to its RFRA after that New Mexico court case saying a wedding photographer couldn’t turn down a gay wedding on religious grounds. Gov. Brewer vetoed the Arizona law, but Indiana didn’t get that lucky.

http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/144821/gen-con-warns-indiana-governor-controversial-religion-bill/

57

Like I said, rights are not about popular opinion, you don’t have to change anyone’s mind. Being intolerant of bigots intolerance is perfectly fine.

58

This is abominable and embarrassing. If I ran a heavily service-oriented business here I would probably get the fuck out, too. I’d not like to be queer (or simply different enough to confuse bigots) in a state where even its government is explicitly anti-minority.

As to all the religious talk: ehhh. I’ve no love for ritualized magical thinking, either the good or the bad of it, and I think mockery is appropriate in many circumstances including this one. I do think this is a wider issue though, because I have firsthand experience of Hoosiers who are irreligious and homophobic.

This is a confluence of insularity and unfair discrimination (discrimination in and of itself not being unfair). I’m not sure how one addresses the problem in places that are sufficiently suburbanized as to inhibit much mixing of cultures (I’ve lived all over this state, and everywhere the populations are so sprawled, homogeneous and self-segregating that the problem seems intractable).

Realistically it’s a molasses-crawl version of change in dense urban areas: individuals can’t avoid other people so they realize others generally aren’t negatively different. An erstwhile bigot realizes a new or old friend or colleague is [insert minority characterization] and also a fine person. Their mind changes and they start arguing with, mocking, and ostracizing erstwhile friends and colleagues who haven’t had the realization, and so on.

I guess I’d ask my fellow Hoosiers to be excellent and vote excellently, and when you inevitably find yourself engaged with an intractable bigot, ridicule them. At some point, “fuck nicety” is a proper response.

3 Likes
59

If you consider that participating then I don’t want to hang out where you do. He equated my idea with ‘eye for an eye’ which it can’t possibly be, unless somehow atheism dominates peoples lives as a source of anxiety and guilt for a couple of millennia - which isn’t going to happen since atheism doesn’t even have any core dogma.

Then he said he’d bow out instead of challenging himself by engaging with my hypothetical situation. That’s very lazy participation, if it even counts as participation at all.

According to your and his view of the correct path to a solution I am not trying to solve anything (or am not part of the solution), but judging by the relative popularity of my comments and yours/his I’d say your opinion is in the minority here, bud.

Also: I am the boogeyman.

60

This is how I do it: The intolerant get intolerance and the tolerant get tolerance. It’s very simple. I have no intrinsic problem with religion or the religious, just the bigoted hateful religious who believe that their delusions should be treated with more respect than any other delusion - especially when that extends to the way actual humans are treated. It’s OK to bag out naturopaths but not the religious? They’re both just as full of shit as each other and if the naturopaths are fair game for their kooky beliefs why shouldn’t the religious be as well, especially considering the scale of the impact religion has on society and people’s lives compared to naturopathy.

The only “us vs them” for me is “those who live and let live VS those who expect to impose their personal beliefs on the lives of others”.

  1. Religious persons are shit stains, and we should do as bad to them as they do to us.

I actually didn’t say that at all I said:

homophobic discrimination will only begin to become a publicly untenable position once the public makes it clear that people with those opinions will be treated like the worthless shit stains they are.

There are many religious people and religious organisations that accept members of the queer community with open and welcoming arms. These people I like and I will high five while respecting their beliefs. The others can go fuck themselves and will be met with vitriolic, unashamed, public and very unpleasant disrespect and derision from me at every opportunity.

1 Like
61

Could the con argue that circumstances beyond their control have created an environment which could make attending difficult or unsafe for their attendees? Theoretically, they might be able to get out of the contract using the more-or-less standard clause that lets someone cancel in the event of a natural disaster, hurricane, terrorist attack, etc.

And if they did this, could the convention center and associated businesses sue the state for the lost revenue?

62

So, apparently, is the Disciples of Christ:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_03/a_religious_boycott_to_protest054796.php