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 ...
Any TRUE Conservatie believes in PRIVATE PROPERTY rights.
1) I don’t agree with Wegman’s or Sears for not playing Christmas music, but I believe it is their absolute right to play it or not play it.
As a customer of one of those stores I have no constitutional right to hear Christmas music while I am shopping there. I have the right to express my feelings about it, or to shop elsewhere, though.
2) I briefly looked at the Keeton case, and from what I’ve read so far, I think she was treated unfairly and her rights were violated.
I believe a student in her situation can be required to be able to recite what the text books and the professors say on issues like that, but should not be forced to say she agrees with them.
That said, there are many aspects of psychology that are at so at odds with the teachings of Christianity, that it might be as easy to be a “Christian stripper” or “Christian bank robber” as a “Christian psychologist”, at least if we are talking about psychology as it is generally taught and practiced in the secular world.
For example, psychology generally tries to raise the self-esteem of sinners, rather than humble them, it tends to validate sin rather than rebuke it, and it tends to seek to place the blame for one’s sin on others (parents, spouses, etc.) rather than encouraging the sinner to take responsibility and repent.
Tell me to stop reading my Bible in the United States of America and I will sue. It's that simple.
Nice dodge. Try again.
I realize that you've taken quite a beating in this thread, but McDonalds is absolutely free to make it's restaurants no reading zones. Sure, it would be horrible for business so it will never happen, but the corporation is well within its rights to do so.
You don't have a clue about any of this. You accuse others on this thread of dodging yet you have failed to explain or address the following.
What Christmas music has to do with the topic at hand.
Why the lesbians for Thor group can't have their religious meetings in your living room. After all, according to you, the freedom to assemble supersedes private property.
Or the most basic question of all: What exactly does private property mean to you? Given the inferences that Sears should be compelled to play xmas music, and that McDonalds should be required to host impromptu revivals, I can't imagine that private property means much to you at all.
I am a conservative. A Constitutional conservative. There's no church/state separation, SCOTUS cannot legislate from the bench,etc. The Constitution also gives us freedom OF religion, not FROM it as some dimwitted atheist activists would have you believe. As our founding fathers were practicing Christians it is hard to believe they ever would have imagined a country where people would be telling others they indeed do NOT have that freedom after all.
And it seems a lot of you are missing the main point: The management of this store disinvited this woman and her study group after one complaint after two years of none. We do not have any business speculating outside of the facts as they have been presented in this news item. All we have is the aforementioned.
After hearing time and time again about people not being able to pray or display Scripture simply because one person objected, I find it both appalling and pathetic that people who would call themselves conservatives would defend such a thing by simply ignoring it.
In truth, this isn't about private property rights anymore than it is about me, so for those of you who wanted so badly to try to make it about me by making the lame strawman, "Let's go to Houmatt's house and do whatever" wasted their time and precious bandwidth.
You don't understand the definition of the word, conservative. You don't even have the most basic of understandings.
I am a conservative. A Constitutional conservative. There's no church/state separation, SCOTUS cannot legislate from the bench,etc. The Constitution also gives us freedom OF religion, not FROM it as some dimwitted atheist activists would have you believe.
First of all, you are not a constitutional conservative. Second, you are correct in that there is no freedom from religion. 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. However, McDonalds is not the public square. It's private property. Forcing McDonalds to host church services for street people would be as great an abuse of the constitution as bulldozing churches themselves.
And it seems a lot of you are missing the main point: The management of this store disinvited this woman and her study group after one complaint after two years of none.
While that may be true, the manager didn't actually need anyone to complain. McDonalds has no obligation to host street churches in it's restaurants. Rather than complain, the church should be grateful that it was allowed to meet there free of charge for two years
In truth, this isn't about private property rights anymore than it is about me, so for those of you who wanted so badly to try to make it about me by making the lame strawman, "Let's go to Houmatt's house and do whatever" wasted their time and precious bandwidth.
You don't get to dismiss property rights, nor do we have to take your word that it's not about property rights when the converse is obviously true.
Two, as with many things in this discussion, you don't know what a strawman argument is. No one has replaced your arguments or misrepresented your position as to make either/or easier to refute. The comments about your living room are analogies, that myself and others have offered in the hopes that even you could clearly see that the 1st Amendment concerns the public square, not private property. Sadly, it remained beyond your comprehension despite the efforts of many.
Sure I do. I also understand the definition of the word bullsh*t, which is what every word that is not mine in your comment is.
No, you didn't win anything. Changing the definition of conservatism to disregard the meaning of the words "freedom of religion" in a constitutional republic, which is what the United States of America is, is not a conservative ideal, no matter how much you wish and hope.
The ‘Free Exercise’ Clause in the First Amendment only limits the Government from interfering with your religious practices. When you’re on private property you have to follow their rules no matter how offensive you find them - or just not go on their property at all. It doesn’t matter how many people complained or didn’t complain. MacDonald’s sets the rules on their property just like you would set the rules on your property. Ain’t freedom grand?
>>>The only people who believes it is okay to tell another person to stop reading a Bible in a business establishment like McDonald’s because private property rights trumps the Constitution are people who are really not conservatives at all.<<<
a) Nobody told anyone they couldn’t READ a Bible. They told her she couldn’t hold MEETINGS where people talk, pray out loud, cry, etc..
b) If a business owner wanted to ban Bibles, Korans, Athiest publications, or the New York Times from their establishments, they would have every right to do so.
c) This was a group of homeless people, who could well scare off paying customers.
>>>In truth, this isn’t about private property rights any more than it is about me, so for those of you who wanted so badly to try to make it about me by making the lame strawman, “Let’s go to Houmatt’s house and do whatever” wasted their time and precious bandwidth.<<<
It is not a “strawman”. Let me ask you this.
a) What, if any, limits are you allowed to impose on strangers who want to exercise their freedom of assembly, speech or religion on your property?
b) If you believe you have the right to impose some limits on free speech, etc., on your property, how do you justify denying these rights to other property owners?
Either your home is a free speech, free assembly, free religion zone for all who wish to use it, or McDonald’s has the right to decide whether or not to allow Bible studies. You can’t have it both ways.
Probably got tired of all the bums and crackheads harrasing their customers and going through the garbage cans.
1. Ask you to stop or leave.
2. If 1 fails, call the police.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrong!!
Tell me to stop reading my Bible in the United States of America and I will sue. It's that simple.
You'll lose - the case, and your money to the shyster who took your case. It's that simple.
Which part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand?
Melas stated:
to which you, Houmatt, replied, “I also understand the definition of the word bullsh*t, which is what every word that is not mine in your comment is.”
Case closed. At this point you seem to be arguing only because your pride has been hurt, as no Constitutional conservative on the planet would refer to the statement “McDonalds is not the public square” as bullsh*t. The statement is an obvious truism.
ugh - copy and paste malfunction (caused by end user)
to the previous post, after the words Melas stated, please add the words “McDonalds is not the public square”
Neither would they say freedom of religion is restricted to the public square. That is absolutely Orwellian.
There is no such legal principle in the U.S. as ‘Freedom of Religion’ there is only the ‘Free Exercise’ Clause of the Constitution which limits the government from interfering with your religious practices.
Of course, it is possible you are just trolling me with something you know to be absolute nonsense.
Freedom of religion exists in the public square and on one's own property; everywhere else it is not a freedom but a privilege extended or not at the property owner's discretion. What is Orwellian is to insist that one may go practice one's religion wherever one chooses without regard to private property - that idea directly implies, like it or not, that Satanists may occupy your living room for their worship.
I think the Framers would be tickled to hear that.
1. Ask you to stop or leave. 2. If 1 fails, call the police.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrong!!
Tell me to stop reading my Bible in the United States of America and I will sue. It's that simple.
You'll lose - the case, and your money to the shyster who took your case. It's that simple.
HAHAHAHAHALOLOL If you actually believe you can arrest someone for reading the Bible, you are in the wrong country.
The arrest would be for violation of property rights - and if you think that shouldn't happen, you are in the wrong country. Free exercise trumps private property only in a theocracy ... and even then only the exercise of the state-mandated faith.
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.