<div>The organizers of Gen Con, the city's largest convention in attendance and economic impact, are threatening to move the event elsewhere if Gov. Mike Pence signs controversial religious freedom legislation that could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples.
 
"Legislation that could allow for refusal of service or discrimination against our attendees will have a direct negative impact on the state's economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years," said Adrian Swartout, owner and CEO of Gen Con LLC, in a letter sent to Pence just hours after lawmakers sent the measure to his desk.
 
Gen Con's website describes the convention as "the original, longest-running, best-attended gaming convention in the world!" The conference attracted 56,000 people last year to the Indiana Convention Center and has an annual economic impact of more than $50 million, Swartout said in the letter.
 
"Gen Con proudly welcomes a diverse attendee base, made up of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations, gender identities, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds," she wrote. "We are happy to provide an environment that welcomes all, and the wide-ranging diversity of our attendees has become a key element to the success and growth of our convention."
 

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/polit.../70393474/

</div>
 

---

;

;

Supply and Demand, it's the free market at work. States can pass these restrictive laws if they like but they better be ready for less commerce in response. I don't have a problem with any of it, this is how the market is supposed to work.

---

Thinking of starting a restaurant/ pub.

Call it The Agenda Eatery. Only those with agendas allowed.

Packed house.

May need extra security though

---

Blakes Life Matters

Could the Super Bowl be next?

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...diana-law/

---

What exactly is the law that's controversial I've only glanced at the articles.

---

What exactly is the law that's controversial I've only glanced at the articles.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/201...dice-video

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/polit.../70448858/

 

"Religious Freedom Act" aka "Freedom to be an open bigot Act"

---

Now it's the NCAA's chance to weigh in

 

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...reedom-law

 

<div>On the eve of next week's Final Four in Indianapolis, the NCAA expressed concern about a new Indiana law that will allow businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers based on “religious freedom” and suggested future NCAA championships in the state could be impacted.
 
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on Thursday signed into law a measure that has created uproar in the state where the NCAA is located. Some conventions are threatening to pull out of Indianapolis. Greg Ballard, the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, broke with the Republican governor on the bill and said it would put the city's economy at risk.
 
“The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events,” NCAA president Mark Emmert said in a statement Thursday after the bill was signed. “We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees. We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week's Men's Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.”
 
Jason Collins, the first openly gay active NBA player, asked Pence in a tweet whether it is “going to be legal for someone to discriminate against me & others when we come to the #FinalFour?” Collins will be in Indianapolis next week covering the NCAA's Final Four.
 
Former NCAA vice president Greg Shaheen, who once ran the men's basketball tournament, wrote on Twitter this week, “Spent my life working to bring events/corps [corporations] to my home state. Any law allowing discrimination is embarrassing, unacceptable.”
 
 

 

</div>

---

For those who don't know (or don't remember), the NFL moved a Super Bowl once before. In 1993 from Tempe, Arizona to Pasadena after Arizona declined to make MLK Jr Day an official holiday.

---

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/201...dice-video

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/polit.../70448858/

 

"Religious Freedom Act" aka "Freedom to be an open bigot Act"

 

I still don't get the whole Hobby Lobby thing.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And what timing with the Final Four being there next week

---

I still don't get the whole Hobby Lobby thing.

It's easy. Religious types don't want to be discriminated in their discrimination.  

---

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/201...dice-video

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/polit.../70448858/

 

"Religious Freedom Act" aka "Freedom to be an open bigot Act"

 

So being a bigot should be illegal? What about being a racist is that illegal? Or a sexist?

 

I'm all for making public funded work areas and spaces equal access, but a private business, if they don't want to serve me because I'm a white straight christian that's their business. If they don't want to serve someone because they're a black homosexual atheist that's their business.

 

That said these companies and states that pass these laws, or hold these values are going to have a severe disadvantage in the market place and I suspect events like this the NCAA and the NFL and Gaming Commissions will take their business elsewhere, that's how you address bigots, racist and sexist.

---

It's easy. Religious types don't want to be discriminated in their discrimination.  

 

 

I still don't get the whole Hobby Lobby thing.

 

Private companies have the right to choose what they will and won't cover. People that need medical services covered by their employer can choose other forms of employment I don't see the big controversy there?

---

So being a bigot should be illegal? What about being a racist is that illegal? Or a sexist?

 

I'm all for making public funded work areas and spaces equal access, but a private business, if they don't want to serve me because I'm a white straight christian that's their business. If they don't want to serve someone because they're a black homosexual atheist that's their business.

 

That said these companies and states that pass these laws, or hold these values are going to have a severe disadvantage in the market place and I suspect events like this the NCAA and the NFL and Gaming Commissions will take their business elsewhere, that's how you address bigots, racist and sexist.

 

It is illegal to refuse service to someone because of their skin color or nationality.

---

Private companies have the right to choose what they will and won't cover. People that need medical services covered by their employer can choose other forms of employment I don't see the big controversy there?

 

Companies that don't want to provide flower arrangements for gay weddings, can choose other forms of business.  I don't see the big controversy.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

It is illegal to refuse service to someone because of their skin color or nationality.

 

Sure which is why I'm asking should it be illegal to refuse service for other reasons, like gender and sexual orientation.

---

Companies that don't want to provide flower arrangements for gay weddings, can choose other forms of business.  I don't see the big controversy.

 

huh we where talking about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay for birth control?

---

huh we where talking about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay for birth control?

 

I'm using a counter example of that logic being used the other way around.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Private companies have the right to choose what they will and won't cover. People that need medical services covered by their employer can choose other forms of employment I don't see the big controversy there?

Because we as a society can and should do better for the people and that starts with businesses and how they treat employees. Hence non discrimination laws in hiring/firing practices. If you don't force them they won't do it. I am perfectly fine with forcing them. Free markets will NEVER police themselves in any way shape or form.  

---

Sure which is why I'm asking should it be illegal to refuse service for other reasons, like gender and sexual orientation.

 

Why stop there? Should it be illegal to deny someone service because of a handicap? What about profession?

---