Does the Constitution grant us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of sandwiches?
A group of Christians were refused service at a Subway sandwich location over their choice of clothing, which prominently featured anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ messages.
The group insists they were victims of religious discrimination, and were denied service simply for expressing their Christian faith – and many supporters have rallied to their cause.
But as the controversy has grown online, others point out the incendiary language they chose to broadcast makes the restaurant's reaction understandable... and even worthy of support.
The move comes after a series of legal wins for religious freedom activists, who've secured the right to legally discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community when it comes to everything from baking cakes to selling flowers to designing websites.
Which begs the question: is turnabout fair play?
"I Think You Should Leave"
In a viral video, a group of Christians are asked to leave a Subway sandwich restaurant in Waunakee, Wisconsin before placing an order. Video of the incident shows a young employee affirming that she’s refusing to serve the men. “Because of my t-shirt?” a man behind the camera is heard asking.
“Yes,” responds the employee.
Right to Refuse Service?
An important part of the story that initially went unreported is what these religious shirts said.
They have been described by critics as Westboro-esque, intentionally designed to elicit a strong reaction, bearing inflammatory messages like “ABORTION IS MURDER” and “HOMO SEX IS SIN” in large, capitalized text:
But supporters of the t-shirt crew say the wording is irrelevant – the fact is that they walked in displaying religious messages and were told to leave.
Critics across social media are now calling on Subway to fire the employee and apologize.
“Subway, you should do something about this,” wrote one woman. “Before you get Bud Lighted.”
No action has been announced as of yet.
Discrimination or Fair Treatment?
Does this constitute religious discrimination? Disagreement abounds.
It's not as though the group was kicked out for wearing Christian cross necklaces, for example. The shirts were clearly intended to provoke reactions. Some say that doesn't matter.
Interestingly, the situation has clear parallels to numerous court cases in recent years where the shoe was on the other foot.
Christians offering their services as just about every wedding vendor you can possibly imagine have at some point denied services to an LGBTQ+ couple, prompting lawsuits where they’ve largely successfully defended their legal right to refuse service to the LGBTQ+ community on religious grounds.
Should it work the other way around? What do you think?
226 comments
-
Katelynne Shouse
Good on her......time to stand up to the Christofascist and let them know we'll not be pushed aside!
-
Daniel Gray
Fine then you need to keep quiet when a Religious business refuses to serve any LBGTQ people. Fair is fair,
-
Rev. Rory
It's LGBTQ+. This is not the same thing. Four men went into a restaurant with slogans on their shirts and the cell phone camera going. One man asked the young lady to repeat what she said, that they would deny service, and the location. A person that walks into a restaurant trying to provoke an argument can be sent away. A private business has the right to deny service to anyone for any reason except as protected by law. I once wanted to go on a ride at a park and waited and waited for the people in front of me yelling at the clerk about the price of the ticket. The clerk could have sent them away but did not. She kept trying to explain why she could not adjust the price. The clerk did not send them away or call other employees. When the customers turned around, I understood why. They had pictures of large guns on their shirts and were intimidating that poor kid. Some clothing is designed to invoke anger or fear. No low paid kid in a Subway or at a park should be expected to deal with whatever might happen between people looking for a reaction and the other customers. Seriously.
-
Daniel Gray
Its EXACTLY the same thing when you have LGBTQ people walk in and demand to be served and when the religious owner refuses then they get their underwear in a bunch and sue.
-
Cyndi Everetts
The issue is not their right to express, it was 100% a concocted scenario to get the exact result they got.
This is a perfect example of our offended society. Everyone wants to be a victim and will incite others to react to become a victim.
They weren’t there to buy a sandwich. They were there to offend.
Subway sucks anyways but this employee is just trying to make a living and now, as history repeats itself for the zillionth time, someone gets their feelings twisted in with reality and they want to crucify some poor schlep for trying to keep the peace in a public place.
Wear your stupid tee-shirts to church where you can look like all the other sheep!
-
Daniel Gray
completely incorrect. If they were there to create an issue then why did the peacefully stand there and get berated by the server and then leave peacefully when she ordered them to? Seems your opinion of what happened and what actually happened does not match up
-
-
Alex Bowman
Not if the LGBTQ+ people that walked into the business are kind, respectful, and upstanding patrons of the business. Then, it’s the business owner choosing to create an argument, not the consumers.
-
Daniel Gray
And how do you know that these people were not polite, all the story says is that when the server saw the shirts she refused to serve them. As such if there is no corporate policy then she couldnt do what she did.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
exactly! thank you!
-
-
Amber Fry
Not really. When people go into a business with hate speech on their shirts, it's exactly that, hate and discrimination. When people refuse to serve someone just because they are gay or of a different religion or a different culture, it's hate and discrimination. Nobody should be hating on someone simply for not agreeing with them. Ever. When someone displays such nonsense they should be called out.
-
Russel A. Kester
What one person calls hate speech another calls truth. Prove that quoting scripture is hateful.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
scriptures are made-up, make believe, fairy tales, mythology and most importantly, made up by man(men).
Prove that scriptures are true. p.s. you can't
-
Russel A. Kester
I didn't make the assertion that what was expressed was hate speech so the burden of proof is on the one who does. Nice try though.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Proof that quoting scriptures is hateful? Well that’s pretty easy, the mountain of dead bodies Christianity has left in its wake is a pretty good indicator of its hatred, and Christians have been murdering non Christians for 1700 hundred years, and they used Christianity to do it. Let’s not forget that Christians also murder other Christians when it suits them. You lose this one due to your willful ignorance, Kester. Deny it all you want but you embody the hatred Christians have.
-
Russel A. Kester
That's not proof, that's just opinion.
-
-
Daniel Gray
yes really. Some people consider that hate speech and their opinions are just as valid. So unless Subway has a rule in Corporate, then this person is going to either be disciplined or fired.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
Well said!
-
-
Rev. Donut
This type of action is a ploy.
Those that use this type of tactic, regardless of the topic, are actively looking for a reaction they can get publicity or $$$$ from.
They will go to a 100 places if necessary and search all day trying to find a person or a store that will react in a manner they think will get them that publicity.
If not, why are we reading about it?
-
-
-
-
-
Echo
If it's okay for Christians to refuse to make wedding cakes for gays, then it's okay for Subway to refuse anti-lgbtq+ messages too. If you don't like that you can stop being a bigoted person period!!! It's a two way street, "what is good for the goose is good for the gander."
-
Rev. BH
Well said, my thoughts exactly. (And an eye for an eye.) Except put your word Christians between quotes - because they aren't Christ-like.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Echo, there is a major difference in what your religion says and what someone crybaby who does not like a tshirt says. She will end up being terminated. Deal with it
-
Rev. BH
Could you rephrase that understandably? And who's terminating who?
-
Daniel Gray
Ok 1. Unless the server can show proof that its company policy to allow her to do what she did, then she cant be FIRED-Crap Canned-File 13-Terminated-told to hit the road understand now? She has brought discredit on the company she works for and NO ONE, I dont care who it is, can do that as they usually have a clause in the employment application that tells them they will be fired if they do it. Her ONLY saving grace is if she is the owner of the store and has it clearly marked at the front door that she does not allow ANY t-shirts with saying on them inside her store. If not she will be terminated just like the others that have refused to serve a police officer/military member in uniform have been terminated and Subway has had to make a public statement of apology. So what makes you think something like this isnt going to require another termination? This has to stop and if the leftys dont like it then too bad.
-
-
-
Quinn R Amaro
In this particular situation we all need to understand the difference between what the Word of God says and how humans interpret the Word if God to meet their own personal justifications.
-
-
Chris
Fair is fair. They want to refuse service to people because of their "sincerely held religious beliefs" then they cry because they get treated the same way. My religious beliefs are to love one another. Those shirts violate my religious beliefs. I would refuse to serve them too. It almost looks like they went in with the intention of causing trouble.
-
Quinn R Amaro
This is not about religious beliefs because religion is a HUMAN INTERPRETATION of God's Words. Prove what you say by what the Bible says and not what a religion tells you to say.
-
Chris
I'm sorry, but I'm not real clear on your meaning. Are you agreeing with me, or with the trouble-makers?
If you're agreeing with me, great! If not, you misunderstand my point. I'm stating that so many businesses have used religion to refuse service by claiming to serve certain people would violate their "religious beliefs." These people are claiming their religious beliefs are being violated by being refused service.
However, if you really need me to point out my beliefs in your bible, I'll refer you to Matthew 25:40 (Whatever you do to the least of these my brethren you do also to me) and John 15:12 (This is my commandment, that you love each other as I have loved you). Both of those are attributed to your Christ. I don't think wearing hateful t-shirts is included in those statements.
-
Rev “D”
Well said Chris. I could not find anywhere in Bible the words/ statements on those tshirts.
-
Daniel Gray
Then you are not looking
Leviticus 18:22 "You must not have sexual intercourse with a man as you would with a woman; it is a detestable practice."
Didache 2:2 (means teachings) from Paul "you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide."
-
Chris
So an OT verse and something that isn't even in the Bible are your sources? Do you also subscribe to the no shellfish, no pork, etc? No marking the skin? Honoring the seventh day sabbath and keeping it holy? Or do you (as seems to be the case) pick and choose which verses you use and which you discard?
I gave two verses which contradict the hateful messages of those people. I could find many more in which Christ (he of the Christian movement) says to love one another and be kind to one another. He never taught hate.
Then again, it was all written well after he died so it's second-hand or later. And then a council of men decided which books to include and which to discard, cherry-picking to suit their needs even then.
Of course, since not everyone follows Christ (especially people claiming to do so) it really doesn't matter. The fact remains that the business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Religion has nothing to do with it.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh so when you demand proof and you are given same and you dont like it, then you complain again?
-
Michael Hunt
Sounds like you're describing yourself, Daniel.
-
-
-
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
you make no sense at all. if you agree that religion is man made, then you must also agree the your Bible is a manmade publication of a corrupt church at the time with its own agendas that had nothing to do with spirituality and God. They cared about money and control of the people. So your Bible should not be used as justification for anything either.
-
-
Daniel Gray
And Chris can you show this is a teaching of your established religion? If not then you cannot use this as a defense.
-
Chris
Daniel, you really need to educate yourself on topics before commenting.
Religion is defined as a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
This means my religion can be, and is, a personal set of beliefs. I don't need to show you any documentation to refuse service based on my religious beliefs.
-
Daniel Gray
Chris you need to educate YOURSELF. Just because you claim its a religion does not mean it actually is one nor does it mean that its recognized by law as a religion. You need to stop using your OPINIONS and start going by fact.
-
Rev'd Andrew
Daniel, you appear to not understand the Establishment Clause. No religion in the USA has to be "recognized by law as a religion."
If you disagree, I look forward to you quoting the specific federal law which provides the test for a set of beliefs to become "recognized by law as a religion."
-
Daniel Gray
Oh really? Then prove it doesnt. Here is proof that you are wrong. The disgusting people in the westborough church claim they are a church and applied for a religious exemption and were denied as they were not a recognized religion. Same with the so called church that plays around with live rattlers (not a smart thing for any sane person to do) and they were also denied a religious exemption as they were not a recognized religion. So your whole post is not exactly factual
-
Rev'd Andrew
Again, please quote the SPECIFIC FEDERAL LAW. Your example doesn't quote the law under which they were denied religious exemption "as they were not a recognized religion." $100 says you can't.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
James Mounts
Seems like a mutuality of choices. If you walk around with hateful slogans on your chest, be prepared for a reaction. Just realize it is not you who is being rejected, but your message. Without the shirt, you would be welcome. Seems both moral AND legal.
-
Patricia Ann Gross
Well said. I believe that they walked in just for the reaction. Why else have the video running? If it wasn't "staged" then they were only trying to stir up something. Personally, I would refuse service to trash talking and demeaning message prominately displayed on one's person.
-
-
Barbara Harris
I agree with Chris. I think they intentionally went in with those shirts to provoke an incident. I hope that Subway stands behind their employee. I remember a cop telling a friend of mine one time that if you flip someone off you have committed an act of attempting to start a fight and can be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony depending on what else happened. To me this is exactly what happened here.
-
Joseph Knopick
As .much as I am very conservative on the Abortion question, I cannot say that I disagree with the Subway Employee.
These shirts are inflammatory and are ment to be up in your face.
If another guest came in was incited by their shirts and started a heated argument or violence this would be worse then not letting them eat there.
Shame on those four assholes.
-
Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox
Joseph, I want to give you another reason to consider being pro-choice.
I am pro-choice so every pregnant person can choose to say NO to abortion or can choose to say YES to abortion.
I don’t want any parent who has been told their unborn fetus has an anomaly that is incompatible with life to be forced to have an abortion when their choice is to give birth and hold their baby until it passes.
-
Clay Serenbetz
Your assuming that the fetus and its mother will survive until birth and that the mother is not inflicting unnecessary pain, suffering and trauma while it goes through its death throes. Is it your religion to make children and its mother suffer in immeasirable agony for a period of time?
-
-
Daniel Gray
And Pride shirts are the same thing to some people. Your argument makes no sense.
-
-
Scott MacArthur
Ahhhh, now the chicken has come home.
What is good for one - right to not bake cakes for LGBTQ, is good for everyone in the turn around. She doesn’t like your message, like the baker didn’t like the message an LBGTQ cake would send.
Wrong shirt, wrong shoes- no service.
I just hope she was the manager making an executive decision.
-
Daniel Gray
No its NO shirt-NO shoes NO service. There I fixed it for you
-
-
Tareq Asfour
well, if somebody came into my business with those shirts, I would refuse business also….
-
Daniel Gray
and you would be sued.
-
Amber Fry
And would win. It's been established businesses do have the right to refuse people if they come in disrupting business. They would be getting far less business allowing hate and ignorance in than by keeping tolerance and peace. Nobody wants to go into a business and get a face full of such nonsense.
-
Daniel Gray
No Amber he would lose as you cannot do this unless you ban ALL people with writing on the shirts. Its called Discrimination. You just keep getting yourself deeper and deeper into nonsense with each post you make.
-
Russel A. Kester
According to your reasoning, anyone who goes into a Subway wearing a Pro-Choice T-shirt should be denied service as they are "disrupting business"and "[n]obody wants to go into a business and get a face full of such nonsense."
-
-
-
-
David Webber
Good. To me it's fair treatment. When these people turn around and say that they won't do a cake or anything for an LGBTQ person/community.
-
Jake Reynolds
Four boobs walking around in inflammatory brightly coloured shirts just wanting a sandwich? Baloney! This is a test of certain waters and what the outcome they receive is when they start their “persecution” mantra, (maybe) the staff member (could) have served and kept quiet but she didn’t (for me good for her) but how is this different from “supposed” christians not serving gays or single sex wedding parties, christians my ass these morons are out to start something, plain and simple.
-
Quinn R Amaro
A small amount of investigation will prove that the four individuals who caused the situation had been planning on doing this so it could be considered by earlier intent to create this situation.
-
-
Melinda Fulk
I think it could easily be argued that the shirts were offensive and did indeed use offensive language. They probably wouldn't have been okay to wear to school, for example, simply because of the language. Religion doesn't even need to come into this argument.
That said, they knew exactly what kind of reaction they were going for when wearing those shirts. I wonder how many other interactions were filmed until they got the one they thought would stoke the most outrage?
That said, I feel the need to go order from our local Subway!
-
Rev “D”
Agreed, and followed advice for two good sandwiches! Thanks.
-
Melinda Fulk
EatAtSubway?
-
Rev “D”
Yes, at Subway!
-
Melinda Fulk
Erg! I had a hashtag in front of that, which didn't come through. Instead it made it big type.
-
-
-
-
-
oy_gevalt
It is frustrating that so many Christians complain about the imaginary idea that their rights are under attack as they gleefully strive to deny "the unworthy" their rights.
I would refuse service too, if I could — not because they're Christians, but because they're schmucks.
-
Rev Deborah Dunkle (Raven Wolf Song)
Absolutely their right just as it would be if people came in with shirts promoting gay sex, pedophilia or anything else. The shirts were inflammatory, inappropriate and insulting.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
Should I be asked to leave hobby lobby or chik fil a if I was wearing a shirt that said 'SATAN IS LOVE', or 'SATAN is REAL, god is FALSE'
ps MODS, why click 'Receive Notifications' when I never get them? I have yet to be notified when anyone adds feedback so why bother? Unless it's broken, in which case maybe...I dunno...fix it?
-
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
Isn’t karma grand. If Christians can refuse service to the LGBTQ+ community then any business can refuse service for inflammatory clothing. It is really amazing that Christians want everyone to bow to their wishes but when the shoe is on the other foot they go ballistic. There misguided thoughts that America is founded on Judeo/Christian beliefs and that America is a Christian nation are just plain wrong. Time for them to get over themselves.
-
china mayhew
it's time they got a taste of their own medicine.
-
Quinn R Amaro
On the Day of Judgement, Jesus Christ will put them.in their place and then they will have to think about that fir eternity.
-
Amber Fry
Unfortunately that doesn't do much about the pain and suffering they cause others in the hear and now other than spead more of it.
-
-
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
Turnabout IS fair play.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
I see nothing wrong with this at all. They are free, according to the 1st amendment, and this is reinforced by the US's SCOTUS, and many courts in multiple states, to refuse business to anyone they want based on religious grounds. Doctors are free to refuse to treat someone, even if they are dying, based on their religion or personal views, and have absolutely no consequences for it.
Hell, several states have made laws ENFORCING their religion on others against other people's wills. That is why women are now bleeding to death in hospitals, and dying of sepsis in hospitals because they're now refused ALL forms of abortion care including care to save their lives when they're miscarrying. One of the reasons the USA now has the highest maternal mortality in the entire world.
So if these religious arse-holes want to parade around like that? Then businesses have the RIGHT, according to the 1st amendment, to refuse them. It's that simple. And anyone who screams "But that's not fair, they're discriminating against them! They're going against their 1st amendment rights!"
Tell me this. They're allowed to outright refuse service to people according to THEIR beliefs, so why are not people allowed to refuse THEM service accordingly?
-
Russel A. Kester
Because the employee did not refuse service based on her employer's beliefs, she refused service based on her personal beliefs which is a breech of her employment contract to faithfully carry out her duties in accordance with the employer's wishes and instructions and she exposed the employer to possibly legal liability.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Not at all. According to SCOTUS, refusing service due to your sincerely held personal beliefs is within the 1st amendment. Therefore, she has every right to refuse service.
Not unlike the baker that refused to bake a cake for an LGBTQ+ wedding Not unlike the photographer who refused to do photography for an LGBTQ+ wedding. Not unlike the clerk of courts who refused marriage certs to LGBTQ+ couples.
I think you get the picture.
-
Russel A. Kester
I think you don't see the picture at all. In the examples you cited, the persons denying service based on religious beliefs were the OWNERS. This girl was ONLY an EMPLOYEE and lacked the authority to make such a decision on behalf of the employer.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Actually she does. She is refusing to serve them on the basis of HER religion. Doesn't matter if the OWNERS have a different religious view. I see the picture all too clearly. You, apparently, don't.
So what YOU are saying is, apparently, is that because she's an employee, HER religious and personal views mean nothing, and she should be FORCED, against her will, to serve people who are doing / saying things absolutely abhorrent to her.
Let me ask you this. If it was a devout catholic / christian individual, and the persons were wearing "Satan Rules" t-shirts and they were LGBTQ+ and being very flirty.... say.. two dudes who held hands and kissed while waiting in line, and the person REFUSED to serve them because of those shirts, and due to their religious beliefs, would you be saying the same thing?
Would you be saying that this hypothetical christian should be forced to serve two gay men wearing "Satan Rules!" T-shirts despite it being completely against their religious views?
-
Daniel Gray
Yes they would be required to serve them unless they have it in writing at the entrance to the business.
-
Russel A. Kester
Yes, I am saying just that. And I've said that the lady at the courthouse was wrong for not issuing the licenses to same sex couples and that the lifeguard supervisor was wrong not to raise the pride flag and I even think that the court ruled wrongly in the cake bakery case because it was open to the public and should have abided by local laws it agreed to when it got its license. Employees do not have such rights at work. They don't even have a right to free speech. Employees must faithfully carry out the duties assigned to them by their employer. An employee may request that someone else serve the idiots (which is what they were) or an employee may quit.
I enjoy our exchanges because we both approach these subjects from different perspectives. You are full of compassion and, I believe, love people. I love people too, but hold my passions in check and try to understand any underlying values or ethics which could be problematic. Society needs both approaches.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
The word love sticks in your throat, or in this case, cramps your fingers as you type the word. You’ve no love in your approaches, just hatred camouflaged as something witty or clever. Your approach is to discredit everything whilst leaving nothing behind but ashes and sorrow with your comments. Doing so politely doesn’t change your underlying tone and impact.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, I've spent a lifetime around snarky queens who actually knew how to use their wits and tongues like razors. I assure you, I'm not bleeding.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
Kester, I’ve spent a life time around hick mean girl pick mes. Like them, you put male validation above your own self interest. They also only know how to regurgitate what they were brainwashed with growing up. Im not phased by your failed attempts at being subtle but devastating with their propaganda and lack of logic. Bless your heart, though 😘 💋
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
According to SCOTUS, the first amendment allows EVERYONE, including doctors in emergency facilities, to refuse service to anyone else based on their firmly held, personal, religious beliefs.
And actually employees do have the right to free speech, everyone does. But, just like everyone else, they don't have the right to not have consequences for that free speech. Just like everyone else. Having consequences for one's actions is not "breaking the 1st amendment.".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev “D”
BTW can anyone show me where their display of being “Christian” caused refusal? The T-Shirts stated the following messages: “Abortion is murder” “Homo sex is sin Roman I” “Repent or ( fire logo)” “Planned Parenthood murders children and rapes mothers” 1. Where in the Bible are these quotes from? 2. Where is any known Christian emblems on any of the shirts? 3. No crosses, no Christian flags, nor even a simple word “Jesus” are shown on T-shirts. All I see are four citizens forcibly expressing their thoughts and being advised of another’s perspective. They are then politely asked to leave for making a scene & disrupting a place of business with their provocative advertising of murder, rape, sexual conduct, and fire. Really suggest all these “Christian Karens & Kens” read Genesis 3:22-24, Ecclesiastes 12:14, Ezekiel 33:11. Not for them to judge others, it is only their God’s prerogative too.
-
MAmatthews
The manager of the franchise has the right to refuse service to insure the safety of all of the customers. And the wording on the shirts are of such that a heated exchange of words or worse. To ask them to leave is just to avoid possible problems later. While I can see the customers point, he shouldn't feel that he is entitled to be served if his attire goes against management policies. Perhaps the customer could obtain his own franchise and shop rental, stock the shelves with what's needed, hire employees and train them all at his expense then he can decide policy. Makes me wonder if that 'Christian ' would serve someone who was wearing satanic promoting or anti Christian attire
-
Daniel Gray
but the big thing you ignore is according to Subways policy, there is NOTHING in there that gives any franchese owner or employee to refuse service just because they dont like the T Shirt. I had a former City Council member that refused to allow me to speak because I refused to take off my Veterans Hat. After I grabbed the state law and shoved it in his face and the rest of Councils, I asked one simple question..:Are you going to refuse my 1st Amendment rights because you dont Like my Veterans Hat, if so then say so now for the record. If not then I am going to speak no matter if you like my hat or not" Lets just say that council president is no longer a council president nor is he even on the city council anymore.
-
-
John P Maher
BRAVO SUBWAY ! REVENGE is SWEET, WHEN THE NAZI VERMIN G O Pigs DO IT NO ONE SCREAMS LIKE A PIG.
-
Daniel Gray
except for people like you who get sued for intentionally violating the law and US Supreme Court decisions
-
Rev. Michelle Love
Is this not the message board for a church newsletter? You would never know it based on some of the comments in this thread. Keep in mind that even though you are posting in a private site that there are links to this post that makes it easy to share to several social media websites. People have lost jobs and have been denied employment for comments such as yours. Keep that in mind the next time you want to abuse your First Amendment rights on a site that clearly states that you are to "avoid profanity, insults, and derogatory comments."
-
-
Dale Lash
Those are not christian shirts. Those are outright hatred shirts meant to cause the reaction they did.Real Christians would not wear these.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
lol ever the preacher to hypocrites, I see, Kester. She had every right to refuse service to the hateful. They were clearly harassing people with their opinions and shoving them down people’s throats. Clearly this was a case of bad Christians reaping from all the bad spirit they kept sewing. See that’s the difference just existing and harassment, most of the people you keep personally attacking are just existing. The people you keep defending are taking out their own insecurities and issues out on those who they’ve been told to target. Sad comment as per usual Kester.
-
Russel A. Kester
Robert, I assessed the situation and considered possible repercussions. I don't know if those men were claiming to be Christians or not. It's beside the point. The question is if the employee had the right to refuse service to them. As to who I do or don't defend, you have no idea as you never actually analyze my comments. You seem to enjoy engaging in shadowboxing a phantom you've created. It is the one accusing others of "harassing people with their opinions and shoving them down people’s throats" who is the guilty party.
-
-
James Richard Norby
Since when did JC preach hate instead of love??
-
Quinn R Amaro
Jesus Christ never preached hate. It was the decision of four human beings that decided that they can use Jesus to preach hate.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
Agreed. Though if you listen to a lot of VERY far-right individuals, they claim he HATES everything they hate. They claim their hate is "God's will" or Jesus's will, but will swiftly fight back when you use their own bible against them.
-
-
Nicholas J Page
Leave LGBTQ people alone it's not big and it's not clever obviously the Subway worker found it offensive.
-
Wendy Irene Copeland
If the shirt HAD contained Christian beliefs, they might have a case. The only one close to Christian belief is "Repent or Die". However, hate is NOT a Christian belief. All these shirts do is cause people to run the other way. Hell and brimstone do not work - all that causes is a belief in a "monster" God. I think the Subway worker was right to ask them to leave.
-
Reverend Paula Copp
And religious fanatics wonder why people are turning away from organized religion.
-
Melaine Rae Thompson
I have to agree with the employee on this one. They don’t say in the video which shirt she found offensive enough to ask them to leave, but I am guessing it was either the one they blurred out or the accusing Planned Parenthood of rape. I would not want those shirts in a place families eat either. I also believe they set this up to get publicity.
-
Russel A. Kester
If it were a corporate decision to refuse service to persons wearing such shirts, then the employee could say she'd followed corporate policy. But I doubt there is such a corporate policy so her employment should be terminated. Could the corporation or franchisee establish such a policy is questionable. The operator is offering a public service without any artistic merit so no loopholes. The t-shirts are free speech. If this were allowed to stand, then we'll soon need to resort to women wearing burkas and men white dress shirts and black pants. Bottom line is that the employee had no right to deny service because she personally didn't like the messaging on the shirts.
-
Echo
I'm guessing hate expression is okay from a religious group, but expression of non hate is wrong. At least that's what was stated in your response.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Echo. But I agree. If it was a company policy then she might have a leg to stand on. But if not her whole job is to serve the person who comes in the door as THEY are the customer and THEY pay your wages. So the owner of the franchise needs to either make it clear about the clothing, or fire the fool who decided to do this. Makes no difference as you have had workers think that they can refuse police officers in uniform, or military members. If what you are doing violates the Constitution then you are gone. Plain pure and simple.
-
Amber Fry
The constitution and the laws give businesses the right to decide if they are not going to serve someone, particularly if they are causing trouble in the business. I'd say hate speech causes trouble and they had every right to throw them out.
-
Daniel Gray
Sorry Amber but you have not proved they were doing any such thing. And neither does the story say any such thing nor imply it. And again unless subway corporate gives them the right to do this then she does not have said right. And nowhere in the story does it say they were causing any problems, they just wanted a sandwich.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh and one more thing Amber, I dont know what Constitution you are speaking of but at no time in the US Constitution nor that states constitution does it say anything like what you are implying
-
Russel A. Kester
You have not defined your term hate speech. And again, what one seems to be hate speech another seems to be divinely revealed truth. And please advise which clause in the constitution allows business to deny service.
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
"...seems to be divinely revealed truth." There is NO such thing. Stop trying to make people follow nonsense that people claim are "divine". There simply is no such thing.
It's just you, others and the room full of monkeys with typewriters who wrote your silly bible.
And why would people who, ostensibly are 'not' gay, feel compelled to wear shirts that condemn gay? So long as they aren't practicing gay sex what other people do is their own business and to show up at a business wearing those shirts is provocation at its worse, very much in line with the actions of the Westboro "church"
This behavior is intended to provoke, to attempt to show discrimination against kkkris chins and follows the playbook of the kkkristofascist nationalists and dominionists who are attempting to create a kkkristofascist sharia theocracy in the US
-
Russel A. Kester
JJ, first the T-shirts from what I could see in the picture were slogans not scripture. One might have been but I don't think the other three were. One simply read that abortion was murder. Hardly hate speech. Who cares if the T-shirts are provocative? I might despise a pro Kamala T-shirt but it's a civil right to wear the shirt however distasteful. This is really about people on the left wanting to silence opinions they, personally, find objectionable. That's intolerance at its finest.
-
-
-
-
-
Russel A. Kester
That's not what my comment said at all. No where did I approve of the messages on the shirts as I was seeing this as a free speech issue. And there was no expression of non hate by the worker. In fact, she showed a surprising amount of intolerance and arrogance. I then lightly touched on whether or not this situation was similar to the bakers and web designer and doubted that it is because there is no artistic effort involved in making a sandwich. How did you read it so wrong?
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Russel, free speech only goes so far. Would you serve a person wearing a t-shirt that used the N word? I wouldn’t. Offensive is offensive.
-
Russel A. Kester
James, if I were an employee working at that store, I would not be entitled to refuse service. What I did do in a similar situation when I was earning some extra cash was to call the manager and have him ring up the customer.
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
lol ever the preacher to hypocrites, I see, Kester. She had every right to refuse service to the hateful. They were clearly harassing people with their opinions and shoving them down people’s throats. Clearly this was a case of bad Christians reaping from all the bad spirit they kept sewing. See that’s the difference just existing and harassment, most of the people you keep personally attacking are just existing. The people you keep defending are taking out their own insecurities and issues out on those who they’ve been told to target. Sad comment as per usual Kester.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope sorry Ruined, she did not. The SCOTUS is very clear on that subject and it blows your opinion out of the water.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
And which case do you base this ‘SCOTUS supported’ opinion of yours on?
-
Daniel Gray
And you clearly have no idea what you are speaking of, it says a Government cannot make a law that violates a religion. Wearing a T shirt is not a religion and nor is wearing a t shirt with writing on it that you dont agree with. You really should know what you are speaking of BEFORE you start speaking.
-
Daniel Gray
Try SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER v. JANE DOE, individually and as next friend for her minor children, JANE and JOHN DOE, et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[June 19, 2000] and then sent onto the US Supreme Court in which the school lost, so do you think for one second that they are going to allow a business to do what they said a school couldnt do?
Or if that is not good enough for you then how about this? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protections against religious discrimination in the context of employment, and applies to hiring, training, firing, layoffs, and wages. Title VII is arguably the most far-reaching statute prohibiting employment discrimination. It is also the model for other federal and state antidiscrimination statutes. Title VII states, in part, that it is illegal for an employer
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual, with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (3) refuse service to a member of the public for the simple reason of an article of clothing they may not agree with
Or this recent SCOTUS decision SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 21–418. Argued April 25, 2022—Decided June 27, 2022 Where the coach was ORDERED NOT to wear any type of symbols on his clothing professing his christian beliefs and NOT to pray by himself on the sidelines. Last I read that district lost a WHOLE lot of money when they had to give him back pay bonuses promotions vacation time etc.
As I said Zerp, you really should know what you are talking about BEFORE you start talking.
-
-
-
-
Thomas Allen Grant
Oddly enough, Subway calls their employees " Sandwich Artists." You really should check your facts.
-
Russel A. Kester
LOL, there is no artistic merit in making a sandwich. But by all means show a college catalog to us which has classes in the art of sandwich making right next to basket weaving. Your comment was supercilious.
-
-
Quinn R Amaro
It is obvious not by corporate policy but by that singular woman's choice. Fire her.
-
Rev “D”
Hi refer you to Wisconsin business law and recent SCOTUS rulings. Right to refuse service is very clear, as is Subway’s in store policies.
-
Daniel Gray
And D they have to have a specific reason, just because they dont like the T Shirt is not a justifiable reason nor is it defensible in court.
-
-
AKConiferious
You spelled 'give her a raise' wrong..
-
Robert Gagnon
Bad decision is on employee. Giving them the attention they were looking for is the last thing that should have happened. That said, the shirts could not be more offensive. They were meant to be. Wonder how many places they visited before someone gave the reaction they were looking for. Bet their truck bed was full of sandwiches.
-
-
-
Kirsty Hermiston
I think she did a great job, keeping her cool and getting her point across. This goes both ways. people need to understand that.
-
Canadian Yankee
Although I detest the shirts, simply wearing them should not be a reason to deny service.
-
Rev “D”
In theory it should be that way, HOWEVER since USA businesses have long pushed to have laws passed allowing their ability to ‘discriminate’ by claiming nearly anything from looks to clothing since before ‘60s hippie movement when “long hair” was the issue, this is where we are today. Only difference is the “long hairs” now own the businesses too are using those same “conservative inspired laws.” IMHO
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
No Christian should wear any form of hateful message. Christ said to love your neighbor. There were no exceptions to that statement.
So that means love your: gay, pagan, undocumented alien, and Democratic neighbors.-
Russel A. Kester
Matthew, when did you become a Christian?
-
-
Quinn R Amaro
Incorrect. Each of those shirts spoke about hate toward unbelievers. How can you possibly encourage change towards God with a handful of statements that cannot lead you toward God?
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
God has absolutely nothing to do with hate and bigotry. He is just fine with and loves all His children equally. Even you and those like you choosing to promote hate groups. Stop trying to justify your own choice to hate by claiming it in the name of God. David Karesh memorized the bible and called himself a profit and he had plenty of followers also. He used his interpretation of that book to commit his crimes like many before him.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
you are so biased and trying to claim it in the name of God when God has nothing to do with hate of any kind or would He promote it. And who are you to decide how someone else believes? Even as I totally disagree with evéry thought you have expressed, i still respect you right to your beliefs. so those shirts did not voice "ungodly" beliefs. they voiced your own chosen hate mongering beliefs and have nothing to do with God
-
-
-
Karsten S. A. Johansson
They aren't Christian shirts. Christ means "Christ-like" and everything the Bible says about Jesus suggests he would scatter these people and overturn their tables pronto.
-
Thomas Charles Bogan
I guess you missed the bit about money lenders in the temple. Jesus said "Turn the other cheek" but, He only said it once. He was mellow, not gutless.
-
-
Farajallah Michael Yazbek
This sounds like the tactics of a man named David Gresham. He was a serious pain in the butt to Amarillo because he would taunt bar patrons until they fought back physically. He would then file assault charges, which would be dismissed after all the witnesses demanded the video that his people were taking to be shown in court via subpoena. He also tried to shout out that Santa Claus isn't a real person in front of children at the Santa Claus set in a mall here. He is a so-called charismatic street preacher that needs to go and learn the history of the church he purports to represent. This person even tried to protest the Catholic and Orthodox churches in Amarillo before he was unceremoniously run out of town by "unknown persons" that gave him an ultimatum. Just saying. Now, with that being said, if the employee didn't feel comfortable serving these guys, she should have absolutely said so when refusing to serve them. They should never have been in there in a confrontational way. Businesses have the absolute right to refuse service for any reason, or no reason at all, even if those reasons seem to be discriminatory. All the employees had to do was to declare these people to be a threat to the peace for the other patrons or themselves. Neither side is right, but Jesus says, "Those whose sins you cause are your own sins."
-
Newman Millhollon Turner
Addressing Mislabeling in Reporting on "Christian" Behavior
One of the major issues in the media today is the tendency to lump together individuals who identify as "Christians" without clearly distinguishing their beliefs and behaviors. This broad categorization is problematic, as it fails to differentiate between those whose actions truly reflect the teachings of Christ and those whose behaviors are antithetical to Christian values.
As a Christian, I find it particularly insulting when the term is used indiscriminately. When individuals engage in actions that are clearly unchristian, it is not only misleading but also damaging to label them simply as "Christians." This practice reveals a lack of understanding on the part of the author and contributes to increased division and discord.
For responsible journalism, it is essential to clarify that identifying as a Christian does not automatically mean one’s behavior aligns with the principles of Christianity. The actions of individuals should be examined and reported on based on their adherence to the core tenets of their claimed faith. By failing to make these distinctions, reporters inadvertently support and amplify the behaviors of those on the fringe, who neither embody religious freedom nor uphold Christian standards.
It is time to call out these discrepancies clearly. Reporters should stop nurturing and giving undue attention to such behavior by labeling it under the broad and diverse umbrella of Christianity. Instead, they should strive to highlight the diversity within the faith, recognizing both the positive and negative aspects, and providing a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of religious identity.
-
James S Weaver Jr
Exactly! A political movement coopting the Christianity label, that then promotes values and positions that are clearly non-Christian is fraudulent. When most people read the Commandment about not using the Lords name in vain, they generally believe it refers to swearing. I put forth that the current use by the White Nationalist movement and others to justify their hate in the name of God is much worse.
-
-
Reverend Andrew
I am sorry but you can not have it both ways ! if you want the freedom to say and do as you please aka not serving LGBTQ people then you can not claim foul when you are refused service. Turnabout is fair play !
-
James S Weaver Jr
The first question I would ask regarding this “issue” is, how are these messages construed as being Christian? Both homosexuality and abortion were known in the ancient world at the time of Jesus’ ministry, yet He mentions nothing about either. You could mine the Torah or Old Testament for mentions of these issues, and could easily find texts to support both sides. These T-shirts seem to be overt political manifestations and intentional provocations of the Christian Nationalist movement that has perverted Christ’s message of universal love for wealth and political power. The T shirts are more on par with a group of men walking into a midwestern diner wearing shirts that read Republicans support pedophiles, rapists, liars, adulterers, and crooks. See how long it takes for them to get thrown out on their ear.
-
Rev. Michelle Love
It is clear that these men came to incite violence based upon their choice of attire. Also, the fact that a simple trip to Subway warranted a group photo that was later plastered on social media is evidence that they were trying to elicit a response. Fortunately, the employee, who had been granted the right to refuse service to these customers who came in with their camera recording, used sound logic and respectfully requested these patrons to leave. If I didn't know any better, I would think that the men in question may have had a personal vendetta against the franchise owner and did this stunt in an effort to affect their sales. In any event, nothing that these men did even remotely feels or sounds Christian at all.
-
Shane Michael Westerbur
It is a private business, not a government building. They have the right to refuse service to anyone. How quick everyone was to defend the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a gay couples wedding cake, but then act like this is different. Freedom of religion means all religions ,not just the ones you believe in. I for one agree with the sentiments on the shirts, but wouldn't wear them because it is classless. Remember freedom of speech does not mean there won't be consequences.
-
Bridget Kielas-Fecyk
For the individuals screaming foul and that they should've been forced to serve the individuals. Remember, these individuals have the right to refuse according to their strongly held beliefs. Just like Christians / Catholics are refusing service to LGBTQ+ individuals due to "strongly held beliefs" it goes both ways.
THAT is a part of the 1st amendment. According to SCOTUS, if you have a strongly held religious belief, you have the right to discriminate according to beliefs. If you're an ER doctor, and someone comes in who is trans, for example, and they need life-saving care or they will die, you CAN, legally, refuse and call another doctor to treat them.
-
Ellen B. Wentzel
What would have happened if the shirts said "anti-black" or "anti-jews." Honestly, these discussions are out of line. I find more prejudice on this "Christian" site. That is very anti-Christ.
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
This is a non denominational organization. People of all faiths, or none at all, are welcome. As a non Christian I find it offensive that Christians think they are the one true religion. Guess what, YOU’RE NOT.
-
Rev “D”
This is NOT a christian site, or did you not read “the non denominational organization open to people of all faiths” on home page? SMH
-
David Arthur Lewis
This is NOT a "Christian site".
-
-
Daniel Gray
Ok one thing. If the US Supreme Court has told schools and Government Buildings that they CANNOT tell people what they can and cant wear secular or religious, then someone of you complaining about the people wearing the shirts, please show me EXACTLY where the law says any business can do it. I wont hold my breath waiting
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Schools and government buildings are very different from restaurants and other service industries businesses.
-
Rev'd Andrew
Can you really not distinguish between government agencies and private business, nor understand that different laws apply depending on whether an entity is part of government or private?
-
Daniel Gray
And how come you cannot seem to understand that it makes no difference if its a school or a business. the law applied to both
-
Rev'd Andrew
Except it does make a difference. Private businesses can discriminate where government agencies cannot. I suggest you do a little research.
-
-
-
Amber Fry
Private businesses are not public government businesses. Government is suposed to be secular and non discretionary when it comes to religious beliefs and are there to serve all people regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation. Private businesses can choose who they serve and what they are serving. The part you might be missing here is that ether can throw out purposeful disruptors.
-
Russel A. Kester
I think you are mistaken. Private businesses OPEN TO THE PUBLIC may not discriminate as you suggest per the licensing requirements and court decisions that ruled southern restaurants could not refuse to serve blacks as they were open to the public. Your comment would be correct for private clubs that require membership.
-
Rev'd Andrew
The key here is that businesses cannot discriminate against people in protected classes. I can discriminate based on a non-protected basis. Consider 55+ communities...
-
Russel A. Kester
Interesting. I know about the federal laws. I like the example of the 55+ communities. I will have to do some more research. While I agree with your statement, something inside me questions if the application process by states and cities might change the federal laws by being more restrictive. I remember from my class in business law that they can. But just how, I don't recall. For example, the federal classes might not mention weight, but state laws can and do disallow discrimination based on someone's weight. Good comment. Thanks.
-
Russel A. Kester
Andrew, I looked into this a bit more and it seems there are laws concerning establishments of public accommodations. In summary, as I understand it, the business by way of being open to the public has invited the customer into the store and can only deny service for nontrivial reasons. Here's the link where I got these ideas: https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/free-speech-and-unique-evils-public-accommodations-discrimination
Also, Daniel Gray above quoted a legal case which listed clothes as an item that cannot be used to discriminate. He wrote that a business may not, "refuse service to a member of the public for the simple reason of an article of clothing they may not agree with." So, I think my first comments were correct. The girl was in the wrong.
-
-
-
-
-
Rev Ned
From the pic, it looks like they’re a bunch of idiots looking to start stuff. Ya think? Kinda on subject. Do ya think that if a gun dealer sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime with it, they’re a participant in the crime? Kinda like the bakery and gay marriage thing.
-
Steven Ferrell
Can a worker refuse to serve a sandwich to someone wearing a blm shirt, a shirt with weed on the front? If the answer is no they should not be allowed to serve that customer, then same applies here. Would that employee refuse to serve someone wearing a Thin Blue Line in support of LEO’s?
-
Rev'd Andrew
Private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone provided that refusal isn't based on a protected class (color, national origin, religion, sexual identity, etc.) In this case service wasn't refused because of religion but because of offensive clothing.
-
David E. O'Keeffe
Offensive to whom? Did the store take a survey of everyone in attendance at the time to make that determination? What if I wore a MAGA hat into the store. Would I be refused service? Or what if I wore a Biden/ Harris tee shirt? Would I be asked to leave? Come one folks Thichen up the skin.
-
Rev'd Andrew
Offensive to the person employed to serve customers, obviously. Why would a survey need to be taken? And to your follow-up question: yes, businesses can refuse to serve anyone they choose provided they are not in a protected class. This means that a business can refuse to serve someone wearing a MAGA hat or a Biden/Harris shirt. That's one of our great American freedoms - to (largely) have the freedom to conduct business with whomever we choose.
-
-
-
-
Steve Schafir
People are interjecting politics into religion. We all forget that the motto is a business has the right to refuse service to anyone. They don't even have to have a reason. If you don't want someone to target you then don't wear shirts or anything that will cause people to react to you. Everyone has the right to free speech but that is guaranteed only by the government in government situations. Private businesses do not have to honor that.
-
David Arthur Lewis
The messages on those shirts are NOT religious. They are hate crimes. Not at all different from the old Ku Klux robes. Having that mob of thugs in your family restaurant would seriously hurt business. Let them go eat at Chick-fil-A where they'll get a Hero's welcome.
-
Russel A. Kester
Hate crimes? Really? What law did the T-shirts break making them crimes?
-
Robert James Ruhnke
The hate crimes were the messages on their shirts. They have every right to spew them, sure. The way everyone else has a right to stand up and put it in its place that hatred and lies they were preaching. Right back on the shelf where it belongs. Instead of cozying up to it. Like you do, Kester. Always defending the oppressive and making excuses for them.
-
Russel A. Kester
You just admitted that no law was broken ergo no hate crime.
-
Robert James Ruhnke
They have a right to believe these views, even go out in public and spew them. True. They have no right to force their hate crimes and evil on others. That’s the fine line that pushed pass. Do keep up.
-
-
-
-
-
Ronald Edward Howlett
The answer to this is SIMPLE. It is all written in the headline. THESE PERSONS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN! If they were, they would not be displaying their hatred. They are nothing but the hands of the ANTICHRIST SPEWING THE ANGER AND HATRED THAT WILL ATTEMPT TO DISRUPT THE CHRISTIAN VALUES. As a Christian, the server was absolutely RIGHT by refusing to serve them. These people are being fully MISLED by the POLITICIANS and others TRADING THEIR SOULS FOR POWER.
-
James Bullard
I havve to wonder if they wore those shirts with the intent of provoking a confrontation. If so, I would rate that as a very unChristian act.
-
Travis McMillan
I remember days in school where a t-shirt bearing a band's logo would be considered or an ear ring in a guy's ear could be considered "disruptive" to which my reply has been, is now and shall always be, "Well they wouldn't be disrupted if they were doing their classwork. My shirt or attire is not disrupting that. Sounds more like a problem that belongs to that person."
In that time I have had to deal with people with attire that I've objected to and have even found completely hideous.
The one thing it never stopped me from doing was my job. I just did it. No big deals, at most it took about maybe five minutes or however long it took to get the job done.
Where I drew the line was when they tried to press me on the issue. Most times, my responses were "That's not something I discuss at work or in polite company and sir/ma'am, there's a line behind you and if there's nothing else you need I really do need to attend them as well."
Simple, honest, direct language.
Now, afterwards, when that person has left, depending on what it was they were wearing, we pretty much made a mental list of people we knew would be insufferable.
Private businesses can refuse customers for any reason at all. A business that kicks me out over the Mjolnir around my neck, well, they'll never get my business again. Period. I'll go well out of my way to never darken their doors again but and this is a big one, most wont.
If I were to go in wearing a shirt that says "Your god was nailed to something, mine carries a hammer. Wanna do the math?" then I can expect hostile reactions even though, to me, the shirt itself is just a joke. It's also why I don't wear one.
I'm certain that these shirts do reflect the sincerely-held religious beliefs of these people, however, all four of the people in that photo were wearing them? Now I can't help but think this was staged.
Personally, in her place I'd have just made the sandwiches and let them become someone else's problem after that because they are well within their rights to wear those shirts, yes. I'm also well within my rights to disagree but I'm there to do a job and make money. TMMV
-
The Marriage Minister
These people are not Christian. Not by a long shot! The hatred towards some communities lies at the feet of the GOP, Neo-Nazi's and the White Christian Nationalists. They do not adhere to the Ten Commandments because their "main man" has violated nearly all of them. As long as I have been on this planet there has never been so much hate and divisiveness in this country. One man, ONE! DJT. His face is the face of evil. They seem to forget one thing. All men/women are all created in the image of the almighty. In some comedy references "maybe God was a little bicurious."
-
Lisbeth Kieran Bushey
The language on those shirts was abhorrent and very much anti-christian behavior. This is especially true of the Planned Parenthood shirt and the anti-LGBTQ+ shirt. There’s kids in that restaurant as well as people who may be assault victims or LGBTQ. Didn’t the Cakeshop case give businesses the right to discriminate against people anyway? It’s a business, not a government entity. The First Amendment doesn’t apply here.
-
Christopher R Sherer
I'm sure she was just saving the cops the trouble to show up once these four started harassing customers.
-
Danielle Elizabeth Ostach
There are some things that most people forget. 1) Constititional protection: The constitition says ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and supreme court has extended this to the states after one of the later amendments. This applies only to the government. IT does not give you protection of your religion in someone else's business, establishment or private property. Complain all you want but people do have right to discriminate that includes Christians keeping muslims out of their churches, Jews keeping Christains out of temples or subway kicking people out. 2) the t-shirts were inflamitory, likely to incite hostility and disruption and businesses have a right to remove from premises people that disrupt their business. It is not that they were christian, it was that they were wearing clothing designed to cause dissension and dispute businesses have a right. This is same that dress codes can be instituted by businesses "No Shirt, no shoes, no service"
The big thing about free speech and free religion is you are free to say what you want and believe what you want but no one is forced to print your speech or accept your religion in their owned spaces.
-
Pati Aine Guzinski
Wow. If all the time and energy spent arguing with each other was spent on creating something positive in our communities ( building a playground together, cutting the lawns of neighbors who cannot physically do so, planting flowers to brighten a neighborhood, etc.), what a different world/ country this would be. Does anyone seriously think anyone with a view different from their own is going to change their mind? Can we please find agreement about something that we can fix together? Start there. We humans spend a lot of effort trying to “ be right”. Perhaps instead of trying to be right we could try to be kind?
-
Quinn R Amaro
Why is this being discussed? Is it not obvious to you and everyone else that the world is being ruled by the devil? You know what the Word of God says and I know what the what Word of God says. Those who are anti-God are the ones whose worldly justifications will be the evidence used by Jesus to sentence their souls to eternal damnation.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
The Devil does heavy metal music and orgies, it's god that does plagues, infanticide and great floods. Lucifer is the hero.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
I wouldn't want to dit and eat with them as I totally disagree with any kind of hate group thinking or acts against others. And I believe those shirts need to be called what they are - hate group promotions and any real spiritual God loving Christians should want no association with them at all. But as a gnostic christian who Believes in God as loving all His children equally and the Bible is an inaccurate publication put out by a corrupt church of the time with its own agendas with all organized churches being manmade I know I would not want my rights to believe as I choose and not be discriminated against for it violated. I would say they also have a right to their beliefs even as deplorable as I personally consider them to be. I would have served them and not wanted anything else to do with them or associate with them at all.
-
-
K.C. Eugene Perry
I would say if you own your own company then do it as well or franchise etc I have dealt with people who might not be so friendly regardless of who they are but treat them as you would want to be treated
-
Amber Fry
Yes, and no. You do still have to think of the other customers as well. The unfortunate thing about owning a business is that if you cater to angry violent types then people stop feeling safe there and stop coming in.
-
Russel A. Kester
Amber, your comment forgets that in order to do business in a community the owner must secure a business license which states that they will serve the public without prejudice. According to your reasoning, if people felt unsafe because angry lesbians then the owner should ban lesbians. But, no, they cannot.
-
Michael Hunt
Tell that to the bakers who won't make LGBTQ cakes or the photographer who refuses to photograph a gay couple. SCOTUS has ruled that is all legal.
-
-
-
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Yes, the individuals were expressing their freedom of speech, however, if Subway wants to continue to do business, they need to curb their employees. People are taking this woke thing entirely too far. As for me, I will continue to be a customer of Subway.
-
Rev Deborah Dunkle (Raven Wolf Song)
Well that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But you’re not entitled to wear shirts that are openly insulting of others. While some people scream this is a Christian nation it really isn’t and that is guaranteed in the constitution.
-
Rev “D”
Agree it is not a christian nation, nor will it ever be as long as our fellow citizens remind these zealots of those simple facts.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Quite honestly, Rev. Deb, I don't have any activist T-shirts, nor would I ever think of wearing one nor condone the wearing of one. I don't know where you got the idea that I would. I do disagree with you and others who believe that ours is not a Christian Nation. It was founded by Christians seeking religious freedom from the Church of England. Reach into your pocket and pull out a coin or a piece of paper money...on it, you will see the words, "In God We Trust." That motto was put there by our Founding Fathers, who were Christians. You can deny whatever you choose, but it's there in plain sight. God bless you! Reverend Theresa C.
-
James Riggle-Johnson
Theresa, “In God We Trust” was not put on money by the founding fathers. It was done in the 20th century. Yes, our founding fathers might have been Christian, but the specifically did not want the government to support any one religion. People were supposed to worship in any way they wanted or not at all.
-
Daniel Gray
And in the Newdow Decisions, the SCOTUS does not agree with you
-
Michael Hunt
Newdow lost due to lack of standing, not the merits of the case.
-
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
In god we trust was added in the 40’s not in the 1770’s, Theresa. It’s your right to disagree, but you’d still be wrong. If you do some actual research instead of parroting right wing talking points, you’d know that. Now you do 😉
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Okay, Kids, I should have worded things differently, however, it stands that "In God We Trust" is on our currency. There are those of us who believe in God and those who don't. I could not care less whether you do or don't believe in God...but guess what, if there is a God, you'll be left in the cold. As for right or left wing? The choice is yours just as it is mine.
-
Rev'd Andrew
It's not that you "should have worded things differently" but rather that you should be honest (as a good Christian) and acknowledge that you were wrong to assert (from ignorance) that "In God We Trust" was put on our money "by our Founding Fathers." If there is a God (which is highly unlikely) non-believers won't be "left in the cold" as a true loving God will embrace everyone. I find it sad that so many create god in their own image.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Just like Burger King's ad expresses, "have it your way!"
-
Rev'd Andrew
Burger King is referring to tastes, which are wonderfully diverse. You were claiming false facts, which you can't have "your way"!
-
Theresa C. Marquess
No, Burger King was referring to choices. In my original post I chose criticize the employee for taking it upon his or herself to ask the persons wearing what she or he personally deemed offensive and asked them to leave the restaurant without referring to Subway's policy. Had it been my employee, that individual would have been looking for another job. This post is a matter of store policy, not of the content of the T-Shirts.
-
-
Robert James Ruhnke
That phrase doesn’t make money any cleaner. If anything it shows us who the real god of this nation really is, money and power, which is what your cult of Christianity uses to get its dirty way, Theresa. I find it sad you worship a hollow idea of a god, one which has its followers threaten non followers with the violence of hell if they don’t believe. Get a grip on reality, Theresa.
-
Rev'd Andrew
This retort makes no sense. Individual employees can refuse service if they feel threatened and/or abused. Contrary to your claim, Subway has not gone out of business because an employee refused to serve 4 children wearing offensive shirts. It doesn't surprise me that you would have fired the employee had you been the boss. You have shown that you are ignorant of basic American history, indicating that your decision-making is based on fantasy not fact.
-
-
James Riggle-Johnson
I’m not sure God excepts people who hedge their bets. “I’ll believe in case it’s true. What have I got to lose.” That’s not a true belief of faith.
-
-
-
Rev “D”
Theresa C. Marquess, justWow, There were Christians among the Founders however the key Founders who were most responsible for the founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution) and who had the most influence were theistic rationalists. As for the “in god we trust,” that started being putting put on some currency after end of Civil War 1865 as a morale booster. It was not till 90 years later, in 1955, that HR619 was passed. In 1957 paper money started having the term on it. So no Founding Father put it on there as all the Founders were very specific to keep god & any one religious belief out of governmental administration. Please learn the USA’s history before making things up. Thank you.
-
Wendy Irene Copeland
The Founders were escaping the state mandated Church of England. Everyone at that time were forced to adhere to the Church of England. The founders objected to that. The major religion at that time were the various Native American religions. There were few ministers around as the US was being settled by the Europeans, so most were either unchurched or had no belief at all. Many still believed in potions, etc. I think a more accurate statement would be "America is a nation founded by a mixture of people with varied beliefs that has many Christian people in it"
-
Russel A. Kester
Except those other "mixtures of people" were not Americans. They were separate nations and proudly so.
-
-
-
-
Rev “D”
Woke thing? Hmm just wondering when the christian bakers refused service was that a woke thing too? Christian hypocrisy at its finest.
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
You realize that Jesus is the poster child for wokeness, don't you?
-
Russel A. Kester
Jesus is not the poster child for wokeness as you and I have discussed in the past. He was very conservative on the question of divorce and said that to even look at a woman with lust in one's heart was a sin. If one is not a follower of Christ and Christianity what gall to speak like this on behalf of a faith one does not hold or believe. I don't tell Wiccans what their goddess is or is not and Wiccans should show the same respect. If I said that the goddess despises lesbians there would be an uproar and I'd be told to mind my own business and stay iny own religious lane; well the same to those who write as you did. Stay on your lane.
-
Asa William Sprague, II
Christ was very conservative on the question of divorce? So, I have to ask: Have you never read John 4:7-24?
-
Russel A. Kester
Yes, it is the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus told her to go get her husband which she could not do because she'd been married five times. Nothing in this story says that he approved of her divorces or remarrying. Now, have you read Mark 10:1-12 wherein Jesus specialty condemns the Jewish practice of aan giving his writ of divorce to a wife saying that once a man and a woman are married that no human can separate them, meaning it is not morally right for them to be divorced by anyone? And in versus 11&12 he says that anyone who divorced his wife and marries another is committing adultery? The Christ was more conservative on this than even the Pharisees!
-
Asa William Sprague, II
The story of the woman at the well is more meaningful than you give it credit; especially in contrast to Mark 10:1-12.
Mark 10:2 some Pharisees came and tested Him by asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?'
The scripture makes it clear that Jesus' knowledge of Jewish Law was being tested; and Jesus answered by quoting Jewish Law.
John 4:5-30 indicates that despite OT scripture saying it would be a sin for a Jewish man to eat or drink food served by a woman who has had multiple husbands, Jesus asked (and supposedly drank). At no time during the interaction did Jesus condemn, chastise or berate the woman over her marital history. Instead, He offered her salvation.
-
Russel A. Kester
Indeed, they did test his knowledge and he showed not only that he knew their laws, but knew God's law better and showed why their law allowing for a writ of divorce was wrong and took the much stronger stance that divorce is not allowed. That is a more conservative stance than that held by the Pharisees.
The versus you referenced is the same story. You suggest, in keeping with Matthew's comment above, that by talking to let alone accepting a drink from the Samaritan woman that he was somehow being "woke." That is not the case, as he showed in his discussion about divorce he dismissed man mad laws in favor of God's laws and his mission. He came to call sinners not the righteous which is exactly what he did here. As for the idea that it was a sin for a man to eat or drink from the hands of a woman who'd had several husbands, I'd like to know where to find those versus for my own knowledge, but granting your statement as true, it would still be the case that that was a law made by men, not God and the Christ was not obligated to follow it. Christ was not woke in the sense Matthew is trying to use it. Given what we have both said, how did your references dispute my assertion that the Christ was very conservative on the question of divorce. The topic is his teachings on divorce, not what is permissible or not on any other topic. Specifically, show me that he held a liberal view on divorce by allowing men and women to marry, divorce, and remarry willy nilly.
-
Asa William Sprague, II
Regarding the OT scripture that says it would be a sin for a Jewish man to eat or drink food served by a woman who has had multiple husbands, I was thinking of Leviticus 22:13. Upon reflection, I'm not sure that scripture provides the lesson I thought it did. Apologies for any confusion.
"... marry, divorce, and remarry willy nilly."
Why is the only perspective certain people see under the so called "liberal" label one of complete and total permissiveness? The woke attitude of Jesus on this topic was simply this: "divorce is a sin, but you can be forgiven."
-
Russel A. Kester
Asa, I agree that Leviticus 22:13 probably didn't agree with your thinking above. But it was interesting to read.
The attitude you ascribe to Jesus about forgiveness of sin is not woke, it's as conservative as any. The OT provided for the forgiveness of sin. The Psalms say that God only requires a contrite heart and true repentance. Many forget the true repentance part and try to opt for just the forgiveness part. Jesus was not woke as Matthew and other have tried to use it. Matthew was saying that Jesus would identify with the far immoral values of left-wing progressives and especially trans and queer ideologies. That is simply not the case. Being loving and kind is not a woke value; it's a Christian value. The queer (not gay and lesbian) community is trying to take over Christianity as it has done with much of our educational system. I'm about to read a book on queer theology. I understand their tactics and thinking better all the time. They're not stupid. It would be a terrible mistake to think that. They are Marxist in their ideological perspectives and tactics. They have serious funding. They are dangerous.
I enjoyed this conversation. Thank you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rev. Dr. Father JJ
So you find nothing wrong with the sentiments expressed on their shirts and find subway and their employees to be in the wrong? Is that how you see this, the kkkristofascists were in the right? Seriously?
-
Matthew Mastrogiovanni
With great freedom, comes great responsibility.
-
-
Holly Jarrett
Our society nowadays is in a sad despair in certain aspects. I myself have worked in customer service for 39 yrs and in all kinds of industries so i have seen my fair share of wrong or bad attitudes or service. To many times i have seen all kinds of discrimination . Even i have gone thru it myself. In a place of business it shouldnt matter who wants to buy something cause your in business to make money right? Money is green so nothing else should matter . I also know that not all money is good money. Basically if you want to be real about everything , we are all 1 Race! The Human Race we all bleed the same . Start respecting everyone even ones that do wrong, for when you condemn people you are just blocking your blessings that are coming to you.
-
Erika Karoline Jones
I believe that LOVE created all things, and it is by Love we exist, live, and breathe. Love does not bash another human being for oppossing beliefs, does not take free choice of personal decisions from the owners. LOVE is patient, LOVE is kind, LOVE is creative, and all the good things we would love to be, true LOVE is. LOVE is forgiveness. LOVE tolerates differences. Based on these things for myself, I have no right to judge another. I walk and strive to be an example of what I believe, sometimes I slip up, how can I not forgive, why should anyone do the same for me if I do not show forgiveness. May everyone here be blessed.
-
Thomas Charles Bogan
You have allowed it this long. Why pretend to have a spine now.
-
Jimmy Moon
Those are some great shirts. Where can you purchase them? Also, I call the sodomites, alphabet people instead. It is quicker to say.
-
Kathy Kristine Norris
Here again, we have another case of one side wanting to express their position with T-shirts that clearly are provoking. If it was because they prayed and gave thanks for their meal, I can see that being no one's business. It would be no different if I had worn a LGBT rainbow flag T-shirt into a business such as a Christian bookstore. I am asking for it; comments, looks, opposition, criticism, and/or inflammatory responses. The team of men, proudly displaying their message are clearly looking for a reaction and they got one. If we have moved back a half century, where signs were posted saying 'we have the right to refuse service', then post it. Post your hate and opposition for others as you will right at the front door. It is a shame that sign has existed, but it has. I have seen it here in mom-and-pop shops in Texas. Frankly I am disgusted by it, but then again, if you do not want my dollars, so be it. If you don't want the fight, don't provoke it. If you do want the fight, get ready for it...you just might get one.
-
Lion on the Beach
I've thrown away better food then anything Subway can ever slap together on their day-old rolls and filled with their nitrate injected meats. Remember when you go to a place that has minimum wage individuals behind a counter, you're going to have that type of mentality.
-
John Tussey
Depending on how Subway handles this problem depends on whether I remain a customer or not!! The employee(s) that refused to service the customers should be fired & training should be implemented with new hires. There was no threat to the employee(s) so their response was uncalled for. If those customers had been disrespectful then they would be another story, however what their shirt said should in no way prevent anyone being served.
While the ‘employee’ may not have agreed with what the shirts said, there was nothing vulgar on the shirts! Not to mention that if the employee is supportive of what was on the shirts they also have to understand not everyone accepts their views & doesn’t consider abortion murder or same sex a sin. What that employee needs to understand is that many people support what was printed & it in no way gives them a reason to not serve them! In a service industry like Subway, that’s what you do!
I work in an industry where I have to ‘put up’ with people of all mindsets as I work in the concert industry! I encounter people with all sorts of opinions & must put up with their antics for several hours. I’ve been ridiculed for being ‘straight’ more times than I can imagine. As I work in security I have to make sure ALL are protected during the show & safe! That also means trying to manage people who feel entitled’ to be in a seat other than they purchased only to be called every name in the book when addressing situations. Tired of helping someone dressed as a male wanting to be referred to as a ‘her’ & hearing about it when it happens (one cannot figure what another imagines to be when they’re dressed as their born sex.
If Subway supports the decision of the employee they will have permanently lost this customer!Enough already, GOD created man & woman (& no other gender). Gender dysphoria is a mental condition as stated by psychologists & psychiatrists journals. And while respect for all humans is needed I disagree with all that has been done to promote a mere 4.4% of our population. Making people accept unacceptable behavior of a minority is always going to find pushback……..and trying to make people accept abnormal behavior is wrong!
What goes on with people behind closed doors is their own business & has no business being promoted outside of that!!
Subway has a problem here, looking to see how they handle it as it could cost them quite a few customers!!
-
Zephram Tino
Free speech only if you are NOT christian.
-
Glenn A. Ronning
I support the Subway franchise and the Subway employee. These shirts are not christian based shirts, they are vile disgusting messages intended to incite division and spur controversy. These so called men of god have every right to wear the shirts, but the company/franchise has the right to refuse service. If I went in wearing disgusting messages against their god or mocking their ideals in their establishment, would they serve me? I think not.
Those t-shirts seem like a brilliant way to drive people away from Christ.
In fact, now that you mention it...
As for me, I'm all about THE Christ, which goes to "unity consciousness." Condemnation thus works against the very POINT of original Christianity, seems to me.
Meantime, I'll phrase it along lines Thomas Jefferson used (aka bad paraphrase): if it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, why should i want to control it or stop it?' This could go to both sides of this ridiculously oversized brouhaha.
Sentence before Thomas Jefferson’s “badly paraphrased” quote: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” An oversized brouhaha that a particular political party & its elected government officials are constantly implanting their religious beliefs into becoming laws against a small minority for simply wanting to be themselves. Those implemented laws are hurting those minorities both in “pocket” and real world physical and psychological injuries. Some Christians forget the USA was founded by oppressed colonists that were not represented in their government, NOT Christianity. The colonists fought against a king, and won their right to form a perfect union, free to worship any way they choose. No one is forcing Christians to do anything they do not want to do, nor stopping/ interfering their way of life. As for public Pride, etc displays, the same could be said for Christianity's public displays of crosses, churches, festivals, and holiday displays being just as offensive. Christians should learn “not judge” and “love thy neighbor,” or is that too ridiculous for them to follow the teachings of their proclaimed savior? There is no ‘war’ on “Christianity.” Most have moved away from Christianity because of it’s zealot leaders that sound more false hypocritical prophet just fleecing the flock, than actually declaring and upholding the highest command of Jesus to “love God and your neighbor.” ~IMHO
And I believe it is quite obvious who the government entities work for and it is clearly not for God.
Yes, the entire people whom they represent, Romans 13:1 So umm, your point is?
I absolutely will not go to subway cause of this and the gay satanic witch who refused to take their orders should be fired.
The fact that their group photo could not even be posted on this site without being blurred is justification enough for the sandwich artist to deny service to this group. And do I need to mention the man that had the word "rape" written on his shirt in neon orange which was probably the first thing she saw? Have you considered that this petite woman may have been a victim of sexual assault in the past and immediately felt intimidated by these domestic terrorists who clearly came into her place of business to incite hate and discontent? She exercised a right afforded to her by her employer for the safety of herself and the other customers in that restaurant. To call her a gay, Satanic witch because of this makes me ashamed to be in the same ranks as you. I hope that every Subway in America sees your name on this post and helps you keep your promise of never dining there again.
First off, it is government of the people, by the people, for the people. Religion is specifically forbidden to be established and used to dictate the laws. What you find offensive by religion, others do not as they have different religious views. This is reason for establishment clause.
The biggest problem I have on these boards and in public is when people say "GOD demands this.". No, you want God to demand it but he has not spoken to any one in ages. It is all our interpretation of what is right by our religious faiths of which there are hundreds of them and decree by man.
and since it is men's interpretation then it is men's law in the consitition that should hold sway.
You seem to think you and I disagree, but we don't. ...at least not in principle.
I'm not interested really in either narrow-minded side of the 'argument' at Subway.
Was anyone at risk of a broken leg or picked pocket (aside from Subway prices being a bit obscene)? I'm not seeing that.
But the endemic narcissism of both sides of almost any identity based argument has its risks, as some will want to get forceful. That's not a problem of free speech, but of twitchy people that need to get over themselves.
No one is entitled to rule another or to be ruled by another. Not even if you wanna be.