Yet you think that the law enforcement officers should be willing to risk their own lives to stop them, which unless you place a very low value on their lives, tells me that you think it is an emergency after all.

While there is of necessity some risk to their safety in the course of their job, that doesn't mean that they signed up to give up their lives needlessly just to satisfy some jackasses who don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.

This isn't Hollywood. That's a course of action that has pretty good odds of resulting in the people attempting to do the arrest injured or killed.

This isn't "any reason." This is attempting to ram the gate at a secure checkpoint, where the use of deadly force is expected.

I'm not willing to risk the lives of law enforcement or soldiers in order to try to spare people who are apparently too stupid to live.

I thought we got rid of slavery a century or two ago.

By summer, they may have been able to finish assembling half a dozen of those 10,000 shelters.

Because smart people don't seem to want the job.

Cue the whiners, indeed.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.

When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.

You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.

People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.

Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

Some of us believe that the government isn't there to ban every single behavior that we find distasteful. That doesn't mean that we are "happy to help" encourage it.

Sure they are. They (and you) want to take away people's freedom to avoid actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Maybe you have a good reason for doing so, but don't pretend that there is no restriction of freedom here. There is.

No.

Gen Con should be (and are) permitted to take their business elsewhere, for whatever the hell reason they want.

But the narrative that is being pushed that they are standing up to racists or homophobes by taking this action is inaccurate. They're primarily trying to make life painful for people that largely agree with them in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

Would you mind pointing me to the people that want the government to force the convention to stay in Indiana?

Because I haven't heard a single person advocate that.

The convention organizers aren't trying to punish those who are being homophobic or racist, though. They're trying to punish those who believe that homophobes or racists have that freedom.

If that were true, then there wouldn't be so many people trying to cheat.