FYI, GenCon is contractually obligated to hold it there until 2020.

A good point that has been said in different Articles, but the question on that bit of information is - "What is the Penalty for them breaking the contract?".

Here are some points that can be considered.

• They had no plans to do it right now, but there can be no doubt that they are considering it.
• This year GenCon will not change Venues, but that does not apply to the coming years.
• If GenCon sees a significant drop in attendees.
  • If they could show that it is due to the law. They might be able to break the contract without penalty.
• After 2020 the Convention could move to another location regardless of what Indy offers.

FYI, GenCon is contractually obligated to hold it there until 2020.

A good point that has been said in different Articles, but the question on that bit of information is - "What is the Penalty for them breaking the contract?".

Here are some points that can be considered.

• After 2020 the Convention could move to another location regardless of what Indy offers.

And at what point do they start entering negotiations for a new venue or continuing the contract? I highly doubt they'll wait to start negotiations in 2020 and possibly not in 2019 either. I wouldn't be surprised if the convention center would want an event like that contracted and booked 2-3 years out before the contract dates, so starting to send out feelers on other venues 4-5 years out isn't unreasonable.

FYI, GenCon is contractually obligated to hold it there until 2020.

A good point that has been said in different Articles, but the question on that bit of information is - "What is the Penalty for them breaking the contract?".

Here are some points that can be considered.

• They had no plans to do it right now, but there can be no doubt that they are considering it.
• This year GenCon will not change Venues, but that does not apply to the coming years.
• If GenCon sees a significant drop in attendees.
  • If they could show that it is due to the law. They might be able to break the contract without penalty.
• After 2020 the Convention could move to another location regardless of what Indy offers.

Same penalties for breaking any contract, money. Breaking a contract and entering into negotiations for a new one isn't a great position to be in if you're looking for a deal financially.

It's a worthwhile issue because the Indiana law is drivel, but at that point Gencon has shoehorned themselves into locations that are politically sympathetic and universally more expensive. It boils down to greenbacks.

A good point that has been said in different Articles, but the question on that bit of information is - "What is the Penalty for them breaking the contract?".

Here are some points that can be considered.

• They had no plans to do it right now, but there can be no doubt that they are considering it.
• This year GenCon will not change Venues, but that does not apply to the coming years.
• If GenCon sees a significant drop in attendees.
  • If they could show that it is due to the law. They might be able to break the contract without penalty.
• After 2020 the Convention could move to another location regardless of what Indy offers.

A good point that has been said in different Articles, but the question on that bit of information is - "What is the Penalty for them breaking the contract?".

Here are some points that can be considered.

• After 2020 the Convention could move to another location regardless of what Indy offers.

And at what point do they start entering negotiations for a new venue or continuing the contract? I highly doubt they'll wait to start negotiations in 2020 and possibly not in 2019 either. I wouldn't be surprised if the convention center would want an event like that contracted and booked 2-3 years out before the contract dates, so starting to send out feelers on other venues 4-5 years out isn't unreasonable.

All valid points, I was just throwing it out there.

How do we know they are contractually obligated to that state for 6(!) more years?

Also, as an exhibiton organizer I can tell you it seems extremely unlikely they have commited for such a long time and if they have then they definitely have stipulations that would allow them to get out off the agreement. Believe me, otherwise I'd be doing shows in Nanjing, China for the next 4 years and lord knows I am never going there again.

How do we know they are contractually obligated to that state for 6(!) more years?

Also, as an exhibiton organizer I can tell you it seems extremely unlikely they have commited for such a long time and if they have then they definitely have stipulations that would allow them to get out off the agreement. Believe me, otherwise I'd be doing shows in Nanjing, China for the next 4 years and lord knows I am never going there again.

http://wane.com/2015/03/25/gen-con-asks-pence-not-to-sign-religious-freedom-bill/

That article only states they "talked about it" I know of no colleague that would make a commitment for such a period of time...

That article only states they "talked about it" I know of no colleague that would make a commitment for such a period of time...

It states "Chris Gahl, Vice President of Marketing and Communications for Visit Indy, said Gen Con is contracted to stay in Indianapolis through 2020. Beyond that, he said losing the convention would be “a crushing blow.”

I live in the state, I have seen many articles stating the same thing (from legitimate news services).

But I guess it's beside the point, I was only throwing it out there. It was food for thought on the fact that while they may decide to move it elsewhere, but it may not be an immediate change (if that is how they decide).

Sorry, I read it wrong. From an organizer's p.o.v. this seems like an awfully long commitment.

Sorry, I read it wrong. From an organizer's p.o.v. this seems like an awfully long commitment.

I bet they got one hell of a good deal for that commitment.

They probably don't think so now...

Believe me we try to make arrangements for 2 or 3 future editions all the time but anything over 5 is considered bad business.

They probably don't think so now...

Believe me we try to make arrangements for 2 or 3 future editions all the time but anything over 5 is considered bad business.

I believe this deal got done due to the Expansion of the Indiana Convention Center in 2011. Commitments made back when it looked like a good business decision. GenCon LLC was coming off Bankruptcy at the time.

Unfortunately, it looks like the bill was signed today.

If Gen Con is serious about not holding the convention in Indiana after the signing of the bill, they have some options. Breaking the contract would be financially ruinous, but it could be done. They could just not hold the convention; I'm sure the wording of the contract doesn't require them to have a convention, just that if they do they have it in Indianapolis. The leadership of Gen Con could disband it (which would be a major cultural blow) and start another one, but there might still be a lawsuit over whether or not that breaches the contract.

I don't think Gen Con will go through with it, though. (The article even talks about Adrian Swartout moving the convention after 2020.) More likely, they'll back down a bit and continue to hold the convention as normal, albeit with more of a defiant flare. The real concern is the loss of attendees who might protest the law by not coming. I'm all for it personally, but it'll harm GenCon as well as Indiana tourism, since the convention will be losing money, too.

Unfortunately, it looks like the bill was signed today.

If Gen Con is serious about not holding the convention in Indiana after the signing of the bill, they have some options. Breaking the contract would be financially ruinous, but it could be done. They could just not hold the convention; I'm sure the wording of the contract doesn't require them to have a convention, just that if they do they have it in Indianapolis. The leadership of Gen Con could disband it (which would be a major cultural blow) and start another one, but there might still be a lawsuit over whether or not that breaches the contract.

I don't think Gen Con will go through with it, though. (The article even talks about Adrian Swartout moving the convention after 2020.) More likely, they'll back down a bit and continue to hold the convention as normal, albeit with more of a defiant flare. The real concern is the loss of attendees who might protest the law by not coming. I'm all for it personally, but it'll harm GenCon as well as Indiana tourism, since the convention will be losing money, too.

Silly law. Won't survive an equal protection challenge, and I'd imagine it will be struck down long before 2020, no need for hasty decisions by Gencon. More political grand standing, which is def not needed.

I'm in Europe so wasn't familiar with this law. But reading this it doesn't seem problematic to me - someone should not be forced to, e.g. contribute toward abortions or host a wedding for a couple if this is against their religious beliefs, imo. And I don't see it as GenCon's role to protest against such. Maybe I'm misreading the law as I'm basing this just on the article that was linked. But it seems off to me for GenCon organizers to put their political beliefs into this. Gamers come from all sorts of backgrounds and GenCon is the big annual event for us, it shouldn't be trying to speak for the community on matters that are individual choices.

Well, just replace gay with black or Jew in any of those cases and how that would be regarded.

I'm in Europe so wasn't familiar with this law. But reading this it doesn't seem problematic to me - someone should not be forced to, e.g. contribute toward abortions or host a wedding for a couple if this is against their religious beliefs, imo. And I don't see it as GenCon's role to protest against such. Maybe I'm misreading the law as I'm basing this just on the article that was linked. But it seems off to me for GenCon organizers to put their political beliefs into this. Gamers come from all sorts of backgrounds and GenCon is the big annual event for us, it shouldn't be trying to speak for the community on matters that are individual choices.

Well, just replace *** with black or Jew in any of those cases and how that would be regarded.

There in lies the problem with the law and why it would be unconstitutional . It fails to provide equal protection under the law . Like I said it's just political grandstanding, someone trying to firm up a voting block and that's about it .

I'm in Europe so wasn't familiar with this law. But reading this it doesn't seem problematic to me - someone should not be forced to, e.g. contribute toward abortions or host a wedding for a couple if this is against their religious beliefs, imo. And I don't see it as GenCon's role to protest against such. Maybe I'm misreading the law as I'm basing this just on the article that was linked. But it seems off to me for GenCon organizers to put their political beliefs into this. Gamers come from all sorts of backgrounds and GenCon is the big annual event for us, it shouldn't be trying to speak for the community on matters that are individual choices.

Business owners have a very limited right to restrict patrons if their businesses are generally open to the public (it's different if you're a private club, but you still can't openly deny membership on bases like race or gender, even if that still happens in practice). In any case, a business generally open to the public can have a neutral limitation that applies to all potential patrons like "No shoes, no shirt, no service" but it cannot say something like "no service if you're black" or "no service to women."

Well I mean it can say that but it will get sued and it will lose, so. There is hella Supreme Court precedent on this. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (private businesses may not discriminate on the basis of race - granted both of those are based off of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). There is a good argument that there is no rational basis for discrimination or different-treatment on the basis of sexual orientation - that's how a lot of the pro-LGBT court rulings have come down over the past decade.

Also GenCon's organizers are under no obligation to care about the makeup of their con constituency. The people who own the GenCon intellectual property are not obligated to hold the con in a location that they believe will ultimately be detrimental to their business or their brand, due to locating it in a jurisdiction that supports discrimination. They're not speaking for the community if they leave - they're speaking as to their brand, which they have every right to do.

I'm in Europe so wasn't familiar with this law. But reading this it doesn't seem problematic to me - someone should not be forced to, e.g. contribute toward abortions or host a wedding for a couple if this is against their religious beliefs, imo. And I don't see it as GenCon's role to protest against such. Maybe I'm misreading the law as I'm basing this just on the article that was linked. But it seems off to me for GenCon organizers to put their political beliefs into this. Gamers come from all sorts of backgrounds and GenCon is the big annual event for us, it shouldn't be trying to speak for the community on matters that are individual choices.

Business owners have a very limited right to restrict patrons if their businesses are generally open to the public (it's different if you're a private club, but you still can't openly deny membership on bases like race or gender, even if that still happens in practice). In any case, a business generally open to the public can have a neutral limitation that applies to all potential patrons like "No shoes, no shirt, no service" but it cannot say something like "no service if you're black" or "no service to women."

Well I mean it can say that but it will get sued and it will lose, so. There is hella Supreme Court precedent on this. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (private businesses may not discriminate on the basis of race - granted both of those are based off of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). There is a good argument that there is no rational basis for discrimination or different-treatment on the basis of sexual orientation - that's how a lot of the pro-LGBT court rulings have come down over the past decade.

Also GenCon's organizers are under no obligation to care about the makeup of their con constituency. The people who own the GenCon intellectual property are not obligated to hold the con in a location that they believe will ultimately be detrimental to their business or their brand, due to locating it in a jurisdiction that supports discrimination. They're not speaking for the community if they leave - they're speaking as to their brand, which they have every right to do.

Whether one could apply the Civil Rights Act is still an open question as we really need the Supreme Court ruling on G marriage. I agree there is definitely an 'in the spirit of' element to that thought process but it's actually not even that in depth a strategy for sinking this law really imo. The simple fact it provides a statutory form of tort immunity for one group of people and not everyone sinks it on an equal protection basis under the 14th amendment imo.

Considering Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor, the Equal Protection Clause being applied in marriage ban strike-downs across the country, the fact that the notoriously conservative 5th Circuit looks likely to uphold marriage ban strike-downs in Texas and Louisiana, and the fact that it's virtually certain that SCOTUS will nationally strike down marriage bans this summer, it's not a stretch. But you're right, it's not a solid ruling yet.

Well, just replace *** with black or Jew in any of those cases and how that would be regarded.

Well again, this is the first I've heard of the law so I'm going off the link that was provided. But what got my attention was the abortion part. It seems that you can be forced to pay towards that from what it says. There is no way I would be happy to do that - it's utterly against my beliefs. They're not religious beliefs, but I don't feel my beliefs should be less valid because of that. I don't care if someone is gay, straight or whatever, but that to me is utterly wrong outside of cases where the mother's life is at unusual risk or it's a result of ****. This probably isn't the place to get into that so let's not, but I don't see that as remotely equivalent to discrimination against someone because of their skin colour, for example - it's an entirely different category of issue.

Whether you could force someone to act as a photographer at someone's wedding and if that's equivalent to refusing to serve someone in your shop is more debatable. I can see the argument there and that seems reasonable enough to write a law to prevent discrimination of this kind. But the law as I read it isn't about discrimination as such, it's about preventing people following their own ethics. That overlaps, but it's not about that. A law against discrimination I would have no problem with. But I CERTAINLY do not see it as GenCon's place to exert pressure about matters of personal belief like that.

Well, just replace *** with black or Jew in any of those cases and how that would be regarded.

Well again, this is the first I've heard of the law so I'm going off the link that was provided. But what got my attention was the abortion part. It seems that you can be forced to pay towards that from what it says. There is no way I would be happy to do that - it's utterly against my beliefs. They're not religious beliefs, but I don't feel my beliefs should be less valid because of that. I don't care if someone is ***, straight or whatever, but that to me is utterly wrong outside of cases where the mother's life is at unusual risk or it's a result of ****. This probably isn't the place to get into that so let's not, but I don't see that as remotely equivalent to discrimination against someone because of their skin colour, for example - it's an entirely different category of issue.

Whether you could force someone to act as a photographer at someone's wedding and if that's equivalent to refusing to serve someone in your shop is more debatable. I can see the argument there and that seems reasonable enough to write a law to prevent discrimination of this kind. But the law as I read it isn't about discrimination as such, it's about preventing people following their own ethics. That overlaps, but it's not about that. A law against discrimination I would have no problem with. But I CERTAINLY do not see it as GenCon's place to exert pressure about matters of personal belief like that.

Here's the difference: "personal ethical belief" was used as justification, for centuries, of the oppression of racial minorities and women (among many other groups, but these are definitely the biggest). People are free to have whatever personal moral beliefs they want - the line is drawn when those beliefs extend out of them to harm other people. You can be as racist as you want - if you have a publicly-open business, you cannot simply discriminate against non-white patrons. You can be as homophobic as you want - you cannot just deny a discrete class of people service.

If you're a wedding photographer and you don't want to photograph an interracial marriage, my suggestion is to make up some excuse aside from a racist one - scheduling, vacation, your workload is too heavy. But of course people want to hold their beliefs out there and think they're entitled to no consequences because of it, so they say "no I don't take photos for mixed-race weddings) and then they (rightfully) get **** dumped all over them. Now, yes, I understand people don't want to lie, but you have to be exceptionally stupid to think saying "I don't like mixed race couples" and thinking you can hide behind the First Amendment when people criticize you or you get fined for not following neutral laws of general applicability such as non-discrimination ordinances.

Regarding GenCon - the owners of GenCon have the right to do with their business as they please. I don't see how this is exerting pressure over personal belief - GenCon is not bound to share the beliefs of its patrons or of the people who run the state in which it sets up shop. Say the owners of GenCon are very pro-choice (I don't know if they are - this is just a hypothetical). They are well within their right to move their con out of a state that (to continue the example) places stringent restrictions on abortion. They have the right to do so regardless of what percentage of their patrons is pro-life. It's their property - they don't have to bring money into an area that expresses beliefs fundamentally different from their own.

Since sexual orientation is not (currently) one of the areas specified as being illegal to discriminate against, crap like this can still go through. I wonder how many other non-specified areas of religious objection could be pushed. Imagine being refused service because you've had a blood transfusion or eaten pork.

Well, just replace *** with black or Jew in any of those cases and how that would be regarded.

Well again, this is the first I've heard of the law so I'm going off the link that was provided. But what got my attention was the abortion part. It seems that you can be forced to pay towards that from what it says. There is no way I would be happy to do that - it's utterly against my beliefs. They're not religious beliefs, but I don't feel my beliefs should be less valid because of that. I don't care if someone is ***, straight or whatever, but that to me is utterly wrong outside of cases where the mother's life is at unusual risk or it's a result of ****. This probably isn't the place to get into that so let's not, but I don't see that as remotely equivalent to discrimination against someone because of their skin colour, for example - it's an entirely different category of issue.

Whether you could force someone to act as a photographer at someone's wedding and if that's equivalent to refusing to serve someone in your shop is more debatable. I can see the argument there and that seems reasonable enough to write a law to prevent discrimination of this kind. But the law as I read it isn't about discrimination as such, it's about preventing people following their own ethics. That overlaps, but it's not about that. A law against discrimination I would have no problem with. But I CERTAINLY do not see it as GenCon's place to exert pressure about matters of personal belief like that.

The law as written is extending protection to citizens from civil action by person(s)/group(s) based on religious beliefs. The problem with the law constitutionally in simple terms is, you can't do that. Any protection you extend to anyone from civil action, you have to extend to everyone for everything. If it's ok to refuse service based on religious grounds, it has to be ok to do so based on every rationale you can imagine.

I didn't see the abortion comment, but that's already been decided in case law by the Supreme Court and businesses don't have to provide abortion coverage as part of a health package for their employees if they object on the basis of religious grounds. That's already been decided.

Since sexual orientation is not (currently) one of the areas specified as being illegal to discriminate against, crap like this can still go through. I wonder how many other non-specified areas of religious objection could be pushed. Imagine being refused service because you've had a blood transfusion or eaten pork.

Sexual orientation isn't covered by the Civil Rights Acts which means it's not illegal to discriminate against LGBTs at the moment, but that doesn't mean the law passes an equal protection challenge. It can't imo.