Tweet
I’m not sure how these Goons for God can claim any event featuring a cross burning ISN’T racist, but that’s how toxic the word has become, even to stone-cold Christian Identity white supremacists who are putting on a pastors conference for “white Christians only.” (Raw Story):
Residents in Guin, Alabama became outraged earlier this week after they noticed flyers posted around the town that read, “Annual Pastors Conference All White Christians Invited.” The groups Christian Identity Ministries and the Church of God’s Chosen told WIAT that they just didn’t have the “facilities” to accommodate non-whites.
“We’re seldom ever have been invited to black Muslim events and we never have been invited to NAACP events and we never have been invited to join Jewish synagogues events and stuff,” Christian Identity Ministries Pastor William J. Collier explained.
“It has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of racism or hate or anything like that,” he added. “And anybody who would brand it as that would be a racist and a hater themselves, you know.”
I’m kind of perplexed — what do these people envision constitutes racism? After all, they even call the cross burning the “Sacred Christian Cross Lighting Ceremony” to symbolize, in their minds, “tyranny.”
***
Atheist files complaint against restaurant for church bulletin discount
In an interesting turn on religion-based bigotry of another sort — in Pennsylvania, Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen has been reported for discrimination to the state’s Human Relations Commission for its practice of offering a 10% discount to diners who bring in a church bulletin on Sundays. Atheist John Wolff pointed out the obvious — that’s a bias against anyone not attending church, never mind whether they are of a particular faith.
“I did this not out of spite, but out of a feeling against the prevailing self-righteousness that stems from religion, particularly in Lancaster County,” Wolff said. “It’s not a big deal in itself and I have no animosity toward Prudhomme’s, but I do bear a grudge against the religious right that seems to intrude on our civil rights, right and left, getting laws passed that favor religion. And this was one more nail and I wanted to do something about it.”
…The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is helping Wolff with his complaint, claims that discounts based on religion are illegal under the federal Civil Rights Act.
“As a place of ‘public accommodation,’ it is illegal for restaurants, grocery stores or other businesses to discriminate, or show favoritism, on the basis of religion,” the foundation wrote on its website. “Church bulletin discounts are restrictive promotional practices, which favor religious customers and deny customers who do not attend church, and nonbelievers, the right to ‘full and equal’ enjoyment of the restaurant, store or other business.”
Owner Sharon Prudhomme plans on ignoring the complaint, saying “I did check with all churches that I know of and ministers and they have said anyone can grab and go. Come on in grab a bulletin, you don’t have to stay at church, you can take it in and still have a nice dining discount. So, everybody’s covered.”
19 Comments
I don’t even want to know what “facilities” are required to accommodate non-whites. No separate drinking fountains, guys?
These people just don’t get it, do they?
Not only does Ms. Prudhomme say she intends to ignore the lawsuit and complaint and continue to offer the discount, on the restaurant’s Facebook page she personally mocks, to the delight and support of the page’s commenters, this complaint and the atheist who filed it (and at least one commenter said that the atheist should “go back to his country of origin,” as though atheists aren’t Americans). Ms Prudhomme also mocked a disabled woman who has complained about her restaurant as not being accessible, and said that all these people lodging complaints are “over 100. Don’t people have better hobbies any more [than, apparently, suing for their rights],” showing that she’s ageist and ableist, too.
these folks seem to have precious little self-reflection. In great denial of what they are promoting.
It’s only racism when their feelings are hurt …
Actually that would seem to make it a valid discount as it is perfectly legit for a place a business to only honor a coupon obtained from a certain location. If for instance there was coupons that you could get by going to Disneyland, you wouldn’t have much of a case suing the proprietor to give you a discount even though you didn’t go to Disneyland. However, with the aparent ADA issue that seems like there would be potential action that could be taken in civil court or by reporting it to the approrpriate government agency.
Just like every Sunday catholics hold their weekly hatefest promoting discrimination against gay people.
I know it’s your job, but I just feel like we can DIG UP assholes like this any time we want. But wouldn’t it just be better to BURY THEM beneath the social tide of some real activism?
On his baseball cap there’s a round red and white patch. Isn’t that a KKK logo?
Is this really that surprising? Its a Christian Identity meeting . . . that does sort of inherently imply racism. This is like being surprised a Aryan Nation rally being segregated.
(btw, “Christian Identity” doesn’t mean someone who identifies as a christian, but rather is a specific sect of Christianity that really, really doesn’t like non-whites).
Yup. Red circle, white cross within, and Blood of Christ drop in the center. Normally its presented with the cross going up and down, rather than in the “X” form this nimrod has it.
http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/groups_kkk.asp
In regards to the Atheist lawsuit . . . how is this different than giving a free ice cream cone to kids that get an “A” on their report card? I’m not a fan of militant atheism, and I can’t fathom what the basis of his complaint is.
Hey bluevistas@4 ,you are in denial if you think these racists are in denial.No self-reflection is ever in play with a fundamentalist ,whose traditional values are absolutist in biblical ,literalism ,’strict’ constitutionalism and male-run families .Obviously they are smart ,note the sophistical equivalency between them not being invited and others being excluded .Progressives have no moral clarity or strong values so don’t underestimate these fascists .
The difference is that getting an “A” on a report card is nonideological and doesn’t preference anyone’s religious views over anyone else’s. This, in comparison, not only gives preference to the religious, but it also gives preference to those religious that are churchgoing as compared to those who aren’t.
But you are, it seems, a fan of being an apologist for militant theism and deliberate attempts to push religious exclusion. Congratulations!
Fair enough in terms of delineating the difference between my admittedly poor example, but I’m still unclear as to why that’s relevant. We’re not talking about government action here — its a private citizen, in their private business. While I wouldn’t run my business this way, I can’t see why they shouldn’t be able to. It’s not as if the owner is excluding non-churchgoers from service, or charging them more than they charge other customers. Is there a practical difference between giving a discount or adding a surcharge? While I can’t enunciate how the two are different . . . they feel different to me.
I’m even a little shaky as to how this is based on ideology. A devout Christian without a church bulletin doesn’t get the discount, and a committed atheist that walks in and gets the bulletin does get the discount, so the customer’s ideology seems to be fairly irrelevant. You don’t have to profess belief in a faith, or convert, or anything like that. As far as I can tell, a customer can walk in, say “here’s a church bulletin I found laying in the street, and just so you know I despise Christianity and will never support it” yet still get the discount.
Is there any allegation that her prices are inflated? It’s the same price on Sunday for a meal that it is for a meal every other day of the week. Feel free to disagree, but I just don’t see that as some form of punishment to non-church-goers. Just my opinion.
As your quote is mine, I’ll assume you’re responding to me.
“militant theism” — really? You call a 10% discount on a meal once a week for customers that voluntarily enter the business, without any preaching involved whatsoever, “militant theism”? That seems a little hysterical.
“deliberate attempts to push religious exclusion” — Good point. After all, these non-church-goers are being punished by . . . being served by the restaurant at their regular posted prices, the exact same as everybody else without the discount flyer on Sunday, regardless of ideology, and the same price and service as everybody on every other day of the week. Talk about exclusion! Atheists just can’t get that one-day, 10% discount like Christians can . . . oh wait, yes they can. So they’re being excluded in what way exactly? A local restaurant in my town offers a 15% discount for students from the local college. That is a discount I will never be able to take advantage of. Am I being “excluded”? If a business decides to provide Occupy protesters with a free bottle of water, am I as a customer being “excluded” by having to buy my bottle?
I am opposed to militant Atheism. I’m also opposed to militant Theism. Truth be told, I’m opposed to pretty much anything “militant”. I’m just failing to see the devious oppression at play here.
You showed up to defend a preference for vocal theists in the provision of services made available to the public, and you referred to objections to said preference as “militant atheism”. Is the bar for “militant atheism” that much lower than what you’d consider “militant theism”, even as a joke?
And you’re totally right — as long as the non-churchgoers are given the posted prices, that’s totally not a problem. Just like how it’s entirely non-exclusionary when Christians are given reduced sentences. there’s no reason for the non-Christians to complain; after all, the atheists are being charged according to the statutes! So what if one group is given preferential treatment off-the-books; that’s entirely different from, um…required-by-law special treatment?
I guess it’s just another episode of the “I’m anti-militancy*” brand of tone trolling.
“vocal theists” — was she preaching? What did she say? “bring a church flyer, get a 10% discount”. I don’t call that vocal theism. You want to, that’s fine and that’s entirely your right . . . but respectfully, I think you’re setting the bar for oppressive religious zealotry pretty darn low.
And no, you’re right — a 10% discount on hush puppies is exactly the same thing as walking on criminal charges. Using that logic, prohibiting this lady from offering the discount is exactly the same thing as the State banning all churches, right?
Look, this level of (IMO) hyper-overreaction is exactly the attitude I mock in the FarRight. Obama wants to give schoolkids a lollipop? That’s Socialist-motivated wealth re-distribution! That’s a little silly. Let’s change the ticket for getting the discount from “church flyer” to “getting married”. Gay marriage is still illegal in PA . . . is she oppressing gays? I wouldn’t say so. Heck, that’s even more extreme than what she did, since anybody can get a church bulletin but not everybody can get married (to whom they want). Still not oppressive IMO.
Its clear this (anything connected with religion) is a serious topic for you. Again, that’s fine, that’s your right, and rail against it to your heart’s content. I respectfully disagree. I’m not a Christian, I don’t go to church, I’m not advocating for any sort of Theism (or non-Theism) whatsoever. I just don’t see this as advocating for Theism, let alone “vocal militant” advocacy. If someone doesn’t want to walk into a church and get a bulletin, that’s their right. But its not as if walking inside a church causes an Atheist to catch on fire, or makes them re-examine their (non)faith in any way. If their friends were getting married in a church, would he refuse to attend rather than step on church grounds? What is he, a vampire? Its a building. Some people like walking in, some don’t. But everybody can walk in and get the bulletin. Christians don’t get any special benefit — the bulletin isn’t hand-delivered to them while Atheists have to cross an alligator pit. They both do the exact same amount of work, take the exact same steps. If an Atheist can’t step foot in a church, that’s their issue, not the churches.
Change “church bulletin” to “bumper sticker for local Democratic candidate”. In both cases, you have to walk into a particular building say “please give me X”, then take it to the restaurant. Both cases involve ideology and personal preference tangentially. If a Republican is so offended by the concept of setting foot inside the Dem Party headquarters they can’t stomach doing it, fine. Send someone else in to get it for you or don’t get the discount. But is the Republican being oppressed? Are beliefs being forced upon them? Not to me. The only thing I see different between the two scenarios is one uses that most evil of words, “religion”. I don’t support religion, but I don’t have anything inherently against it either. I disagree with Republicans (very, very strongly), but I managed to walk into the Repub headquarters around here last week and I didn’t break into hives, even under the watchful gaze of the giant Saint Ronnie mural they have on the wall.
This doesn’t read to me as “help! I’m being oppressed!”. Instead, this reads like “I hate religion so much that I want to fight it whenever and however I can”. Just my personal opinion here, but I think there’s just generally too much aggression over non-critical issues nowadays.