Hearthstone Chicken

GGOG Episode 6 – A Place for Gays at this Hearth?

Published On March 7, 2014 | By Gay Gods of Gaming | Podcasts

It’s time for Episode 6, where we discuss digital collectible card games, focusing on Blizzard’s Hearthstone, asking whether Blizzard have finally cracked the nut and created a compelling digital card game. Then, we turn on a dime and discuss the recent spate of laws attempting to extend “protection” to people who wish to discriminate against LGBTQ people on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Do these laws actually make any sense at all, or are they merely an obvious fig-leaf for religiously-motivated prejudice? We’ll give you one guess. We end with a discussion of our favorite video-game villains – because everyone loves a good villain!

Your Deities: Corey Clapp and James Croft

Gay Gods of Gaming Twitter: http://twitter.com/gaygaminggods

James’ Twitter: http://twitter.com/jflcroft

Corey is above Twitter.

Email: GayGodsofGaming@gmail.com

Check out this episode

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

James and Corey, Corey and James - we are the Gay Gods of Gaming. Coming to you every week from the hallowed halls of Harvard University, we descend to pass judgment on queer culture, gaming, and all things atheism with a blend of wit, wisdom, and wickedness that tickles the palette and expands the mind.

2 Responses to GGOG Episode 6 – A Place for Gays at this Hearth?

  1. Sheldon says:

    Re.: anti-gay discussion

    Your discussion misleads the audience by excluding certain facts and proposing false premises thereby giving a bias presentation.

    For the life of me, I cannot seem to find an article that summarized the Arizona Bill debacle so well, and I shan’t attempt to repeat at any über abridged summary. Suffice I mention salient facts and ideas missing.

    First, “conservatives”/“Christians” do not initiate fights against gays, lesbians, etc. ab nihilo so it is not they who “started” this war.

    The dead on arrival Arizona bill was a state version of federal law signed by Bill Clinton back in 1993 designed to protect businesses from egregious lawsuits based upon some-such or other.

    This is key: The law is designed to protect businesses from going out of business on account of the private owner’s free exercise of what-have-you, religion being one such example. In other words for example, a Muslim owned bakery should not be forced out of business because the Muslim owner declined to bake a cake for married lesbians.

    The laws are not about religions, although that plays into it heavily, or about being against LGBT people.

    As in the case what happened to four other businesses that became extinct on account of their owner’s refusals to over services to potential (LGBT identified) clients/customers, as in the more popular example of the bakery drummed out of business because the owner declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    Businesses have the liberty to refuse service to anyone they choose, and no, this is not about some blanket Jim Crow-like discrimination cases. (Aside: Let’s suppose a business or owner is a racist. As proved without government intervention, such businesses do not last. Similarly, if the tide of culture insist that queers are like Blacks demand equality, businesses in the interest of self-survival will change to attract such potential customers.
    In a way, I agree. If an owner wants to be an asshole, they have the right to be, but I do not think they must lose their private business just because they are an arse.)

    Likewise in the case of the delivery company was sued for firing two Muslim drivers who broke employee contract in refusing to deliver alcohol.

    Contrast to the hypocrisy exercised by the other side such as the gay hair-dresser declining to service their former client because her “anti-gay marriage” stance.

    How is it the case a gay hair-dresser can deny service to some one suffer no backlash and retain their job/business but a business owner who does likewise is suffers both loss of business/livelihood and reputation?

    What’s good for the goose, must be good for the gander.

    Attn.: Corey
    Just because a private business offers goods/services to the public, does not subject the business to being in the public sphere. As part of the implicit social contract, a private business will compile with the local regulations e.g. equal employment opportunity, health & safety, etc..
    Curious to note, other than Judism, none of the major religions have anything about other races (unless there is some obscure sharia law of which I may be unaware), such laws do not infringe upon religious rights. Evidently, likewise in the products they sale e.g. Muslim owned corner stores in Black ghettos seem to have no problem selling 40-oz malts to poor Blacks.

    Just because a law exists, does not imply those who adhere to the law agree with the law.

  2. Pingback: Gay Gods of Gaming | GGOG Happy Ending – Episode 6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>