GenCon Threatens to Relocate

[Sergovan 1,440]

Probably all the ones who also have contracts with them. Once contract dates have expired I expect to hear a change of venue from Gencon.

[Nightshrike 1,810]

Probably all the ones who also have contracts with them. Once contract dates have expired I expect to hear a change of venue from Gencon.

 

Unless the law is repealed by then, which, to be honest, is fairly likely.  Either it will be repealed by a new congress, or it will be ruled unconstitutional.

[catachan23 399]

Lets hope that goodness and justice prevails Nightshrike. As a man of Faith and not one of Religion, I sincerely hope they repeal this law.

 

The people who crafted and support this bill, and the others across like it across the nation, are our modern day Pharisees.

[Nightshrike 1,810]

Lets hope that goodness and justice prevails Nightshrike. As a man of Faith and not one of Religion, I sincerely hope they repeal this law.

 

The people who crafted and support this bill, and the others across like it across the nation, are our modern day Pharisees.

 

It's my opinion that the US usually gets things right eventually when it comes to this sort of thing.  Sometimes "eventually" is an unbearably long time, but the 20th century showed just how much things can change in a short space of time in regards to all kinds of views (racism, miscegenation, misogyny, homosexuality, etc).

Edited March 29, 2015 by Nightshrike

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

Probably all the ones who also have contracts with them. Once contract dates have expired I expect to hear a change of venue from Gencon.

Unless the law is repealed by then, which, to be honest, is fairly likely. Either it will be repealed by a new congress, or it will be ruled unconstitutional.

Sadly, I think you're giving the Supreme Court too much credit. The justices are only human, after all.

Lets hope that goodness and justice prevails Nightshrike. As a man of Faith and not one of Religion, I sincerely hope they repeal this law.

 

The people who crafted and support this bill, and the others across like it across the nation, are our modern day Pharisees.

 

It's my opinion that the US usually gets things right eventually when it comes to this sort of thing.  Sometimes "eventually" is an unbearably long time, but the 20th century showed just how much things can change in a short space of time in regards to all kinds of views (racism, miscegenation, misogyny, homosexuality, etc).

Some people might argue that not much has changed since the '60s.

Edited March 29, 2015 by WonderWAAAGH

[catachan23 399]

 

Some people might argue that not much has changed since the '60s.

Hate is a Cancer that infects the body of a nation, and as a Cancer survivor, I can tell you that Cancer is a stubborn malady to root out.

[Hobojebus 11,341]

And people get confused about why the younger generation is rejecting religion, **** like this is why they don't want to have a life filled with hate just because a books says so.

It's frankly unbelievable as a European to believe any human with a conscious could not see a problem with this let alone actually let it become a law.

I am disgusted.

[Sithborg 11,644]

And people get confused about why the younger generation is rejecting religion, **** like this is why they don't want to have a life filled with hate just because a books says so.

It's frankly unbelievable as a European to believe any human with a conscious could not see a problem with this let alone actually let it become a law.

I am disgusted.

 

And Europe doesn't have it's own problem parties? 

[Robin Graves 6,054]

Religion is like a device: No matter how simple and userfriendly you make it, there always will be morons who won't know how to handle it.

[Babaganoosh 3,079]

Religion is like a device: No matter how simple and userfriendly you make it, there always will be morons who won't know how to handle it.

 

Seems to me like they know fine how to handle it; they're just using it to drive and justify a morally bankrupt agenda.  Pretty effectively in this case.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

Let's be careful here; as up in arms as I was earlier, I won't pretend for a second that there is no redeeming value to religion. To wit, there is something to be said for having a moral code to hold oneself too, it's just that some people - and let's emphasize that word, some - have issues changing with the times. There are plenty of intelligent, good-natured people the world over, if we only have eyes to see them for what they are. And that goes for people of any spiritual devotion, not just the local Western variety. 

[Guest Andy1909]

 

And people get confused about why the younger generation is rejecting religion, **** like this is why they don't want to have a life filled with hate just because a books says so.

It's frankly unbelievable as a European to believe any human with a conscious could not see a problem with this let alone actually let it become a law.

I am disgusted.

 

And Europe doesn't have it's own problem parties? 

 

 

Yep we do. But if one of the parties in an EU country came up with a law like this it would probably end up in the European court in Strasbourg quicker than you could blink. 

 

Luckily in the UK, any politician who tries to bring religion into politics gets looked upon as being a whack job. It's not an electoral plus as it is in some parts of the USA. If Tony Blair had pressed his religious credentials in a UK election I'm willing to bet it would have lost the Labour party votes.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Andy1909

[Babaganoosh 3,079]

Let's be careful here; as up in arms as I was earlier, I won't pretend for a second that there is no redeeming value to religion. To wit, there is something to be said for having a moral code to hold oneself too, it's just that some people - and let's emphasize that word, some - have issues changing with the times. There are plenty of intelligent, good-natured people the world over, if we only have eyes to see them for what they are. And that goes for people of any spiritual devotion, not just the local Western variety. 

 

Of course; there's plenty of good religious people and people that do good things in the name of religion.  Just not so in this particular case.

[patox 2,020]

 

 

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

 

[Hobojebus 11,341]

Let's be careful here; as up in arms as I was earlier, I won't pretend for a second that there is no redeeming value to religion. To wit, there is something to be said for having a moral code to hold oneself too, it's just that some people - and let's emphasize that word, some - have issues changing with the times. There are plenty of intelligent, good-natured people the world over, if we only have eyes to see them for what they are. And that goes for people of any spiritual devotion, not just the local Western variety.

Morality does not come from religion it comes from empathy we can put ourselves in others places and imagine how bad it is, it's an ability that elevates us over other animals a wolf can't put itself in the elks position but we can know it sucks to be shot or stabbed and so not do it to others.

If we went of biblical or Islamic rules we'd cut the hands of thieves and stone women in any position of power, and slavery would still be going strong.

[All Shields Forward 1,917]

A strong morale code is not tied to religion though. I've known people that think that religion is the only way a person can have good morales and really I thought they were a repugnant human for it. Morales should be based on positive values, empathy and integrity, not fear of eternal punishment.

[DoubleNot7 768]

Oh too funny! Please go on about how superior Europe is! You just can't make this stuff up, oh wait, you are!

Cut the crap, most of you have your heads up your ass and knee deep in your own self perceived notion of intellectual superiority.

The problem is not sexual orientation, gender, color, religion, political views, geographic location, etc... there is only one problem, people. You will find people that will use anything and do something wrong with it. Hell, some people are just as assholes and need no medium to display that.

Say what you will about me but if nothing else I'm brutally honest, even if that hurts your feelings.

Thanks for reminding me why I stayed away from this place. Later.

[WonderWAAAGH 7,153]

Oh, there's no need for us to say anything about you whatsoever. I suspect the moderation staff will be doing that for us in not too long a time.

[Hobojebus 11,341]

So I shouldn't mention how much less gun crime we have then, or go on about universal health care.

[Robin Graves 6,054]

USA VS Europe!

 

Well this should be fun for the five posts before the admins lock the thread...

[Guest Andy1909]

Oh too funny! Please go on about how superior Europe is! You just can't make this stuff up, oh wait, you are!

Cut the crap, most of you have your heads up your ass and knee deep in your own self perceived notion of intellectual superiority.

The problem is not sexual orientation, gender, color, religion, political views, geographic location, etc... there is only one problem, people. You will find people that will use anything and do something wrong with it. Hell, some people are just as assholes and need no medium to display that.

Say what you will about me but if nothing else I'm brutally honest, even if that hurts your feelings.

Thanks for reminding me why I stayed away from this place. Later.

 

 

If this is supposed to be a comment on an earlier post of mine, you're are so far out. 

 

I wasn't blowing the Euro trumpet it was a simple observation on the differences.

 

1. The Strasbourg court. Based on things that have been ruled lawful/unlawful I am willing to bet any law like that which was passed in Indiana would fall foul of the Human rights act. And therefore immediately challenged at Strasbourg. I wouldn't bet that it would work like that in the USA as the supreme court is a constitutional court and is there to interpret the constitution. And in all the commentary I haven't heard anyone say that the law should be referred to the supreme court as of yet.

 

2. The differences between Euro (and in particular as i said UK) politics and USA politics with regard to religion are profound. Last week Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, he did this at a "bible college". If a Brit MP or Prime minister did this they would be pilloried in the press. Any politician who even brings up religion is regarded as a bit of a cuckoo, to put it politely. During the Euro elections we get coverage of politics across the whole EU and I can't remember ever hearing any prospective Euro MP get onto the subject of religion.

 

So no, not a Transatlantic put down. 

[Crabbok 9,869]

The problem with religion is when people take it literally.  Then you have folks trying to stone people to death over eating shrimp, mixing cloth and linen, and for being homosexual.  Instead of worrying about exactly how many steps you can take on the sabbath, or what percentage of your paycheck belongs to a church, or weather Jesus turned water into wine, or non-alcoholic juice that was mistaken for wine.....  just focus on being nice.  

 

  The best religion is to follow Bill and Ted.   "Be...... EXCELLENT to each other!"

[Sithborg 11,644]

 

If this is supposed to be a comment on an earlier post of mine, you're are so far out. 

 

I wasn't blowing the Euro trumpet it was a simple observation on the differences.

 

1. The Strasbourg court. Based on things that have been ruled lawful/unlawful I am willing to bet any law like that which was passed in Indiana would fall foul of the Human rights act. And therefore immediately challenged at Strasbourg. I wouldn't bet that it would work like that in the USA as the supreme court is a constitutional court and is there to interpret the constitution. And in all the commentary I haven't heard anyone say that the law should be referred to the supreme court as of yet.

 

2. The differences between Euro (and in particular as i said UK) politics and USA politics with regard to religion are profound. Last week Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, he did this at a "bible college". If a Brit MP or Prime minister did this they would be pilloried in the press. Any politician who even brings up religion is regarded as a bit of a cuckoo, to put it politely. During the Euro elections we get coverage of politics across the whole EU and I can't remember ever hearing any prospective Euro MP get onto the subject of religion.

 

So no, not a Transatlantic put down. 

 

 

1. Because the Supreme Court is an appellate court. So, it will take time for this to make it's way up to the Supreme Court. That's assuming that such cases make it out of the state courts. Also, there are 31 similar state laws, in addition to the Federal Law. Honestly, the outcry over these laws has only been recently, due to the current political nature. The sad fact is, a lot of it is push back because it is becoming increasingly clear that same sex marriage being legal nationwide is inevitable. There was plenty of pushback to the Civil Rights movement. We just aren't using the National Guard to enforce segregation this time. 

 

2. I know it is a little difficult for many with a parliamentary system to understand our bi-partisan system, but just because Ted Cruz was the first to announce his candidacy, does not mean he will be the final nominee. It is still a long way to go until 2016. And I don't necessarily believe that he will win the Republican nomination. And I don't think appealing to the religious base will win an election. I am pretty certain the party knows it, what with the Tea Party rejection. 

 

Politics are different because cultures are different. You find the use of religion in our politics disturbing. I find the persistence of ultra-nationalists in Europe to be disturbing. But, the reasons for these differences is firmly rooted in our cultures. 

[DoubleNot7 768]

 

"Be...... EXCELLENT to each other!"

So true!

 

 

 

Signed out, link deleted.  All done here.

 

Have fun.

[Guest Andy1909]

 

 

If this is supposed to be a comment on an earlier post of mine, you're are so far out. 

 

I wasn't blowing the Euro trumpet it was a simple observation on the differences.

 

1. The Strasbourg court. Based on things that have been ruled lawful/unlawful I am willing to bet any law like that which was passed in Indiana would fall foul of the Human rights act. And therefore immediately challenged at Strasbourg. I wouldn't bet that it would work like that in the USA as the supreme court is a constitutional court and is there to interpret the constitution. And in all the commentary I haven't heard anyone say that the law should be referred to the supreme court as of yet.

 

2. The differences between Euro (and in particular as i said UK) politics and USA politics with regard to religion are profound. Last week Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, he did this at a "bible college". If a Brit MP or Prime minister did this they would be pilloried in the press. Any politician who even brings up religion is regarded as a bit of a cuckoo, to put it politely. During the Euro elections we get coverage of politics across the whole EU and I can't remember ever hearing any prospective Euro MP get onto the subject of religion.

 

So no, not a Transatlantic put down. 

 

 

1. Because the Supreme Court is an appellate court. So, it will take time for this to make it's way up to the Supreme Court. That's assuming that such cases make it out of the state courts. Also, there are 31 similar state laws, in addition to the Federal Law. Honestly, the outcry over these laws has only been recently, due to the current political nature. The sad fact is, a lot of it is push back because it is becoming increasingly clear that same sex marriage being legal nationwide is inevitable. There was plenty of pushback to the Civil Rights movement. We just aren't using the National Guard to enforce segregation this time. 

 

2. I know it is a little difficult for many with a parliamentary system to understand our bi-partisan system, but just because Ted Cruz was the first to announce his candidacy, does not mean he will be the final nominee. It is still a long way to go until 2016. And I don't necessarily believe that he will win the Republican nomination. And I don't think appealing to the religious base will win an election. I am pretty certain the party knows it, what with the Tea Party rejection. 

 

Politics are different because cultures are different. You find the use of religion in our politics disturbing. I find the persistence of ultra-nationalists in Europe to be disturbing. But, the reasons for these differences is firmly rooted in our cultures. 

 

 

I used to live over your side of the water, I still remember Kentucky or maybe Georgia (I think) putting the ten commandments outside the statehouse or the court? That was like so weird. My ex, who was born and raised in Texas couldn't get her head round the "we don't do religion here" thing.

 

We do have religion involved in our politics over here, it's just very low key. The House of lords (I can hear the death cry in the force as Republican Americans scream out lol and I mean republic as in all Americans not the party term) over here still has a number of Bishops sitting in it. It's the elected side that's the no no.

 

If Ted Cruz does get the nomination and does end up as the next president you lot are going to be so *insert your fave curse word* or you might get really unlucky and end up with Mr Trump. :-) or get Lucky and Elizabeth Warren might run  and win.

 

The ultra nationalists over here have to be blamed on the main stream politicos. The two main parties in the UK are such a bunch of "insert word" that they have aided and abetted the rise of the UK lot. 

 

OK better leave off because the topic was about Gencon and I'm not sure if politics is one of FFG's "hang them at dawn subjects"