Posted on 07/16/2012 10:42:04 AM PDT by Houmatt
Christian ministry leader Dawn Martinez was told she could no longer hold the twice-a-week Bible studies she has taught for homeless people for the last two years inside a McDonald's in Camden, N.J. A night manager at the fast food restaurant told her last week that a customer had filed a complaint. Martinez wonders if it could have been because of the topic briefly discussed at one point last Monday – the Muslim faith.
The 33-year-old, who began the ministry to transients and drug addicts two years ago, describes the Bible study group's last meeting on Monday.
"It was a very powerful night. We had one woman join our prayer circle at the table and she was weeping and crying, but that was nothing unusual for our meetings," Martinez told The Christian Post. "I gave the Bible study. We talked about Isaac and Ishmael. I began to give the history on the descendants of Ishmael and the differences between the Christian and the Muslim faiths because the Muslim faith believes the descendants of Ishmael are the chosen people.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Not true.
The public square belongs to the...wait for it...the public, and as a member of such you have the right to bring your religion in the public square.
I accept your apology.
Actually, no one on this thread has said or even suggested that.
Not true.
"The public square belongs to the...wait for it...the public, and as a member of such you have the right to bring your religion in the public square."
With every post you dig yourself deeper into that hole.
I was going to say what you have now said to our friend Houmatt, but I confess I grew weary of the deflection and the constant moving of the goalposts.
I sincerely believe, Houmatt, that you posted this thread thinking it was a slam dunk, an atta boy kind of thread in which a number of similarly minded folks would post their profound agreement with you and disgust for McDs actions.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum.
You touched on an actual Constitutional issue and you are simply on the wrong side of it, and appear to be unable to get past that fact.
For the handful of us that persevered, thinking, hey it’s a freeper, he’ll listen to reason and see the error of his ways ... no such luck.
Yep. You know, I always told my kids that when everyone you know is saying that you're wrong, it's time to reevaluate your position.
Not me - my idea of a good time is trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.
I went to the original source and read the comments. Not a SINGLE person was making the comments you are here. I asked myself, why? But then it hit me: You are anti-Christian bigots.
No goalposts being moved. Just the truth. And you can all go to hell.
Freedom of religion is restricted to the public square
You are anti-Christian bigots.
you can all go to hell.
<><><><><><><><>
Again, no one has said that freedom of religion is restricted to the public square. Remember, a church is private property and freedom of relgion is frequently exercised within the church's walls. And you know it.
It seems now you are engaging in the act of telling a falsehood over and over again in hopes that it will become the truth.
And count me quite surprised that commentators on a Christian site would focus on the Christian aspect of the story. Not. Were they all freepers stating what you have, we'd be correcting them as well, just like we've been vainly attempting with you. My guess is that many of them would recognize the distinctions that have been drawn here and would likely agree to the private property component of the discussion.
As for the anti Christian bigot comment ... I've a big yawn for you. The final refuge for someone with nothing to say ... you're just an XYZ.
And finally, do you have any idea how silly it sounds for one anonymous poster on an internet forum to tell another anonymous poster on an internet forum to go to hell?
You Sir are a liar. Since you lack the intelligence to apply the implicit on your own, I'll spell it out to you. Your RIGHT to practice your religion extends only to public property. On private property, the practice of religion is solely at acquiescence of the property owner. When you say grace at Grandma's house, it's because grandma has consented. When you sing hymns in church, it's because the church has consented. Since you're dull as a crayon, I'll explicity state that you can practice religion in your own house, because you're giving yourself consent. Should you start arguing with yourself over it, seek mental help.
Now if you want to test this theory, just march over to the first Seventh Day Adventist church you can find and start saying Hail Mary's. See how long they put up with your free exercise of religion on their property before showing you the door.
That said, I'm done with you. I only replied this time, because you decided to tell a bold faced lie with my name on it. Everyone that read my comment knew that I meant religion could practiced in the public square or on private property with the owners consent. But there's that word (consent) again.
Looks like our boy Matty has major issues telling the truth. The following are comments from the site:
Trutfully you should be thankful that you were giving and allowed to worship inside of a Mcdonald's but maybe it's time for more growth.
So they were allowed to study for two years so now it becomes an entitlement? That's the thanks the owner gets for letting them be there for two years. Bad publicity. That's not a good example of Christianity.
Who wants a bunch of transients, homeless and drug addicts in their restaurant?
It has nothing to do with being Christian or not. They group is taking up valuable space for paying customers. I'm a Christian and I can see the point of it if that is the reason. Go to a park, go to someone's house.
It's not a "freedom" issue. A private business has a right not to let people hold meetings there.
It is a business, it is private property.
Yes. McDonald's has the right to refuse to allow these Bible Studies or any other meeting that is not directly related to eating at their discretion.
This story is tagged "religious freedom," but like most of the ones that are, that's not the issue. A private business has every right to decide to host or not to host something like this.
Bible study group uses private property for activites for two years at no charge. Proprietor withdraws permission for group to continue, as is well within proprietor's rights.
There are pages more but I think I've pasted more than enough to make my point. Even on christianpost.com it's plainly evident to anyone with a room temperature IQ that it comes down to property rights.
Another day, another lie.
Go roll marbles down a freeway, bigot.
I thought you said you were “done with me?”
<><><><><><
He was talking to me, but pinged you out of courtesy. That I’m not sure you deserve, frankly.
You consistently misquoted Melas such that you are bearing false witness. Willfully
You have completely misrepresented the feedback from the source from which you posted this story. Knowingly.
You have descended into absurd name calling - there has been not an ounce of anti Christian bigotry on this thread.
Oh, and you are still on the wrong side of this issue.
Dawn Martinez should find a church or a storefront to do such work. I think the McDonalds management and owner should receive a plaque for allowing this bible-study program to continue for 2 years. When you open up a McDonalds, you are investing million of dollars into your franchise, you need to attract customers not detract customers which probably happened when the homeless are there. I’m sure they are not spending money and I’ll bet mothers and their families don’t sit down and eat there. And I bet it doesn’t smell nice when they are there as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.