Restaurant denies Christian group service

lol they deserved it.


Bazinga. This was inevitable that the very same laws theists erected to protect their ability to deny service would be used against them.

The laws that allow a bakery to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple are the same laws that allow a restaurant to refuse admission to those who are not in agreement with their beliefs.


Ignoring the complexities of reality and establishing simple solutions to what are framed as simple “problems” or social concerns - yeah, religions do that, IME.

(So, also, do totalitarian ideologies.)

These solutions used to not backfire on the church and those subscribing to it’s reactionary positions; irony is now seeing the light of day much more often, though.

If only those pesky gays didn’t want to have their cake, too. :roll_eyes:


This is a tough one. I’ve not made my mind up about it yet.
In some respects, demonstrating the impact of the far rightist’s discriminatory behavior by mirroring it makes sense. The problem, however, IMO, is that many of them won’t see it as a teaching exercise, rather as an attack on their too frequently tender sensibilities.
My biggest concern with it is the normalization of restrictions in the marketplace based on philosophies, politics, worldviews, etc. It reminds me a bit of “am not / are too!” schoolyard battles.

And for me, the term “two wrongs do not make a right” seems appropriate. Nothing is solved, such a solution just drives people further apart and widens divisions.

But something inside of me is enjoying the plight of such theists.

Such conflicts usually result in a proper solution. I recall when some theists decided to erect a monument containing the ten commandments outside of a government building. The law allowed that. But it also allowed non-theists to erect their own monument and theists were dumbfounded, confused, and angry.

1 Like

The majority of them ostracize people who don’t conform to their religious beliefs. They have no respect for those who don’t play by their rules. Now they’re being given a taste of their own medicine and they don’t like it. It is a fair exchange. You get what you give.

1 Like

I wouldn’t exactly call it fair, it’s not like anyone is trying to tell them who they can marry or force them to carry even high risk pregnancies to term. What would be fair is if a panel of gays got to approve if they are allowed to marry and random women got to make decisions concerning their pregnancies.


I am tired of those with religious beliefs getting more rights than I do. I can’t just blame my invisible friend for something I want to do and then claim I should have the right to break the law. While I am against banning people for their religion, this should be a two way street if they want to try this crap. They will just play the innocent Christians being discriminated against for their beliefs card without seeing the irony.

What’s wild is that this is nowhere in the bible. I couldn’t see Jesus as a carpenter saying “You lied last week and you are going to lie next week, so no wood for you!”. Under the Christian religion, everybody has sinned. Who could they serve and not have it be “against their religion”?


Religion ran, in some ways still runs, the social authority show for so very long that it will likely be well after we’re gone that this will change in a way that removes the religion trump card in most of the world, IMHO.

Our advances in the art of war now make religious beliefs and differences incompatible to the human species’ survival, though. If human kind’s credulity doesn’t run out before some of our world neighbors decide to enact mass infidel murder with mass destruction, the above point may never be reached, I think.


When they go low, I prefer to go high.

(Unless of course I can think of an hilariously humorous response.)

I know what you mean, I had some uneasy misgivings reading that, but it occurred to me of course that people choose what to believe, they do not choose who they are, things like sexual orientation, skin colour and ethnicity are not a choice people make.

My instincts are to say well done, but not unconditionally until I see where this goes. Bear in mind, these people are being excluded not for their religious beliefs per se, but specifically for their prejudiced actions against certain groups and against women, that’s a choice they are making.

Would anyone object to a business that turned down a KKK or white power rally? They also seemed to have worded their comments very well, as the potential for harm to members of staff who are part of the LGBTQ+ community is something they are legally obliged to avoid as employers, they cannot knowingly place their employees in harms way.

1 Like

I’m not so much bothered by the denial of service, if you are an outspoken bigot or are actively diminishing or trying to undermine another group, you should expect some kind of public humiliation in this fashion. It is a nonviolent way of pointing out people, with views, we would like to ostracize from being accepted as a norm.

That said it should be very vocally made clear by the owners it isn’t the religious part that is the issue, it’s the certain parts of their religious interpretation and belief that are the issue. If you are just blindly denying service based on profiling, well then you are no better than the bigot you are actively trying to expose.

It’s a very weird narrow line to walk, and I hesitate to encourage things like this. Certainly should give reason for pause, but I do think acts like this are necessary in combating bigotry of all kinds.

Just my $0.02

1 Like

No, but it’s a start in the right direction.

1 Like

Good discussion here. From my perspective it is a matter of tolerance. In the first instance of denial of service (LGBTQ+), it is due to prejudice, bigotry, ignorance and the like, which is just plain old intolerance of anything different, with disregard for reasonable analysis of the effect(s) of the thing or behavior objected to or to the recipients of the denial of service after the fact.
In the second instance, it is intolerance of intolerance, which is not only justifiable but necessary to maintain a modicum of civility within the society.(IMO)
While I would prefer not to have to resort to such tactics as denial of service, the usual alternative is to just ignore the background reality and behave as if everything is copacetic. This method lacks any opportunity for learning. While the group of bigots may not use the opportunity to learn how to be more tolerant or accepting of others’ differences, they will certainly be likely to learn that their unacceptable behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by reasonable people and that they cannot expect to get away with that behavior everywhere…and that’s a good thing.

Edit: GTFO

1 Like

Agreed; irony is often a very potent weapon against the mind of the literal.

I mean, this example produced major source news articles and got us talking here. :grin:

1 Like

But the bigots must get a push-back so they realize they can not walk all over others.

This is one form of resistance, among many.


Anyone using their business license to discriminate, should have that license ripped up by the issuer.

With no exceptions? Businesses discriminate all the time… no shirt no shoes no service.
If they are using their license to discriminate as a primary function or integral operational aspect of the acquisition of said license, then rip away. If their “discrimination” consists of identifying and responding to disruptive, disturbing, generally regarded offensive, or highly intolerant behavior or projection and display of such, then I think there is a different argument to be made. Providing service to those who have declared and openly displayed hateful intolerance is acquiescence.
I would have gladly relinquished my business license I held years ago rather than patronize declared Nazis etc…
On the other hand, I provided service to many patrons that knew held views different from my own, but not views widely regarded as bigoted, racist, hateful, etc., and considered it an exercise in tolerance.
Excuse me if I misinterpreted your post.

Edit live and let live


To iterate a point, it’s the normalization of the behavior that I find particularly troubling. Over the past decade or so, it seems that many disturbing behaviors have become s.o.p. So much which I find in people to be appalling is waved like a flag of honor and we end up with the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Perhaps I’m overly sappy, but I far prefer a kinder, gentler way.


Theists are such loathsome enemies of human rights and humanity. These Bronze Age barbarians inflict our society with countless human rights crimes. Indeed, their unHoly Bible is a hate crime against humanity and morality. For 8 long, consecutive centuries, Christians’ barbaric “Holy Inquisition” made Hitler’s concentration camps look like vacation resorts.