Cracker Barrel bans an anti-gay pastor from holding an event in one of its stores

cpwill said:

Nope. I mean that I appreciate how open you are about the fact that you are willing to limit people's rights based on whether or not you find those individuals beliefs to be abhorrent.

It's a disastrously destructive approach that historically encourages abhorrent abuse of people's rights in return, and would be a villain of the Constitution if ever implemented, but I appreciate your openness that you think other people's rights are determined by your opinion of their beliefs

Click to expand...

Whose rights am I limiting or want limited? Not the preacher's! He has no 1A or other "right" to eat at CB, or to have dinner at your house, with your family.

So mainstream Islam and Muslims who believe the Koran aren't protected under the CRA?

Click to expand...

Sure, of course. But those protections are a government privilege, reserved for some classes of people - race, religion, etc. I don't believe a Muslim group preaching death to you and me should be awarded that PRIVILEGE.

Apparently his expression of it certainly is.

Click to expand...

OK, then where is the limit? If I say I hate n*****s, they shouldn't mix with white people, AND it's based on my religion, do I now get to exempt my business from anti-discrimination laws, AND I get the protections of the CRA? It's the magic wand theory.

Which is fine. Cracker Barrel has rights, too.

Click to expand...

That's you moving the goal posts. You can't claim I support abridging "rights" and in the next sentence say well he has no right to be served. It's not an honest argument.

You are conflating unlike things.

1. Yes, where they conflict, generally, Religious freedom trumps state or federal statute. It does not so equally trump other rights (such as right to life, property rights, or other people's right to control their own expression of beliefs).

Click to expand...

That's not actually true, but that you expect it to be true is just you saying YOU shouldn't face any limits if you wave your magic "but MAH RELIGION!" wand, but if I don't have that magic wand, of course I don't get the option of not following those laws.

2. Believing that the destruction of an identity group would be a moral good is not the same as attempting to carry out their destruction yourself.

Click to expand...

LOL, but the genocide (that's what we're talking about) follows the belief. If you're suggesting that there's nothing to worry about when people advocate for GENOCIDE until they actually start the slaughtering I don't agree and history doesn't either.

On the contrary, I think CB has the right to refuse to host both this fools' meeting, and a gay wedding, based on the rights of the owner. Both this man and gays can have their events; that simply does not give them the right to appropriate others service or property.

Click to expand...

Then whose rights was I attempting to limit? Oh, right, no one's. All I suggested is a genocidal maniac doesn't get to cloak it in "religion" and thereby get entitled to special PRIVILEGES.

I think that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and that your approach of "it depends on whether or not I like the gander" - while refreshingly honest - is a terrible idea; theocracy with a new mask.

Click to expand...

That's a very stupid take, IMO. I don't think reasonable adults, or that law for that matter, are prohibited from drawing distinctions. He was a government employee, and they have 1A rights that other employees don't have by virtue of their government employer, especially in an "at will" state like Tennessee. But there is also virtually no question the sheriff's department could have fired this genocidal moron because genocide is incompatible with being a cop, tasked with impartially enforcing the laws of Tennessee.

It's not one of those "both sides" kinds of things. Reasonable people don't believe in genocide. It's not that I don't "like" genocide, it's that it's.....genocide.

marke said:

The Bible does not encourage modern societies to sentence homosexuals to death just for being homosexuals.

Click to expand...

More correctly "The modern interpretation of the Bible, in most societies, does not encourage the killing of homosexuals just for being homosexuals. This has not always been the case, and there is no positive assurance that it will always be the case since LEV 20:13 says 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.' and that DOES even more than 'encourage' the killing of homosexuals just for being homosexuals.".

marke said:

You asked about Biblical teaching as applied to modern society? Does the Bible teach homosexuals should be killed?

Click to expand...

Obviously LEV 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." didn't get included in your copy of "The Bible".

marke said:

Any modern preacher who claims God wants homosexuals put to death for being homosexual does not properly understand the Bible.

Click to expand...

Please explain how LEV 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." does not specifically call for homosexuals to be killed.

AmNat said:

The Civil Rights Act prohibits public accommodations (specifically including restaurants) from discriminating against customers based on religion (among other things). Unless they have a general policy against group reservations, it's illegal for them to reject one because they don't like the group's religious views.

Click to expand...

So, if "Billy Bob's Uniquely Right (wing) Christian -Thal- -Theu- -Thalu- -Thealug- Bible and Divinity School" [a wholly owned subsidiary of Billy Bob's Only True Original Fundamentalist Four-Square Evangelical Revived Reformed Revealed Biblical Church of Jesus Christ The Perfect Arisen Son Of The Living God World Awakening (Just Send Us Your Folding Money Because Worship Should Be Silent) All Aryan White Soul's Salvation, Redemption, and Witnessing Storefront Mission, B-B-Q, Gun & Body Shop. (INC)] where the motto is "God has already told us what to think, and we'll tell you so you don't have to." has a hall that it rents out to the "KKK", "American Nazi Party", and the "Kick All The Jews Out Coalition", it would have to rent it to the "American Anarco-Communist Nudist Group Sex With Children In Public Alliance" if the AA-CNGSWCIPA wanted to rent it - right?

AmNat said:

As noted, the CRA explicitly prohibits restaurants from discriminating against people whose religious views they disagree with. Having a policy that groups with certain religious beliefs are excluded is illegal.

Click to expand...

Those people are perfectly at liberty to purchase and consume meals at "Cracker Barrel". What they are NOT at liberty to do is to disturb other customers in their "quite enjoyment" of their own meals at "Cracker Barrel". The same constraints would apply to a family who ordered a meal at "Cracker Barrel" and then allowed their 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 your old children to run rampant through the restaurant while yelling and screaming as they smashed other patrons' meals to the floor.

It wouldn't matter one bit if that family were devout members of the "God Wants Children To Run Rampant Through Restaurants While Yelling And Screaming As They Smash Other People's Meals To The Floor Church of Christ".

Glitch said:

First, the Bill of Rights is only applicable to the government, not the private sector. Second, any business can refuse to provide a service for any reason they please. You can applaud or condemn Cracker Barrel's decision, but they had the constitutionally protected right to make it.

Click to expand...

The public accommodation laws of the CRA require prohibit some businesses from discriminating or denying service based on race, religion, etc. and some states have added sexual orientation to that list. So they can refuse service for any reason, so long as that reason is NOT race, religion.... Whites ONLY! signs went to the wayside after the CRA, thankfully.

AmNat said:

Personally, I'm in favor of freedom of association. But the Civil Rights Act is the law of the land. Hopefully Cracker Barrel is held liable for this straightforward violation.

Click to expand...

I believe this is the law:

42 U.S. Code SS 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Click to expand...

I can only speak to this area, but I am positive Christians, including Baptists like that preacher, are the TARGET audience for CB, they welcome them with open arms, and their place is full of after church families on Sunday all day long. So there isn't any question CB did NOT refuse him service because of his "religion." This isn't a "NO JEWS ALLOWED" thing, or the equivalent for Baptists.

They refused his event because he called for genocide. There is no question that same guy would have been welcomed to CB but for that videotaped sermon calling for government to round up and kill all the gays.

It's not at all clear to me that falls under the protections of the CRA, just because he can cite a verse in Leviticus to back up that viewpoint. The 'discrimination' wasn't due to his "religion" but his calls for genocide, which isn't to my knowledge an integral part of Christianity, and something that society (nearly) universally condemns.

And if a neo-Nazi group claims that their belief in rounding up and slaughtering Jews is a "religious" belief, do they gain the protections of CRA?

JasperL said:

I believe this is the law:

42 U.S. Code SS 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



I can only speak to this area, but I am positive Christians, including Baptists like that preacher, are the TARGET audience for CB, they welcome them with open arms, and their place is full of after church families on Sunday all day long. So there isn't any question CB did NOT refuse him service because of his "religion." This isn't a "NO JEWS ALLOWED" thing, or the equivalent for Baptists.

They refused his event because he called for genocide. There is no question that same guy would have been welcomed to CB but for that videotaped sermon calling for government to round up and kill all the gays.

It's not at all clear to me that falls under the protections of the CRA, just because he can cite a verse in Leviticus to back up that viewpoint. The 'discrimination' wasn't due to his "religion" but his calls for genocide, which isn't to my knowledge an integral part of Christianity, and something that society (nearly) universally condemns.

And if a neo-Nazi group claims that their belief in rounding up and slaughtering Jews is a "religious" belief, do they gain the protections of CRA?

Click to expand...

When "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation ..." kicks in, it also carries with it the obligation to comply with the "rules of conduct" of the establishment. I wouldn't expect a restaurant to allow me to bring my motorcycle into the dining area, no matter how devoutly I worshipped it and no matter how much angst it caused me if I was separated from it.

Would you?

Would anyone who can say "I am rational." without giggling?

JasperL said:

I believe this is the law:

42 U.S. Code SS 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



I can only speak to this area, but I am positive Christians, including Baptists like that preacher, are the TARGET audience for CB, they welcome them with open arms, and their place is full of after church families on Sunday all day long. So there isn't any question CB did NOT refuse him service because of his "religion." This isn't a "NO JEWS ALLOWED" thing, or the equivalent for Baptists.

They refused his event because he called for genocide. There is no question that same guy would have been welcomed to CB but for that videotaped sermon calling for government to round up and kill all the gays.

It's not at all clear to me that falls under the protections of the CRA, just because he can cite a verse in Leviticus to back up that viewpoint. The 'discrimination' wasn't due to his "religion" but his calls for genocide, which isn't to my knowledge an integral part of Christianity, and something that society (nearly) universally condemns.

And if a neo-Nazi group claims that their belief in rounding up and slaughtering Jews is a "religious" belief, do they gain the protections of CRA?

Click to expand...

are you saying participation in a Native American Church peyote-driven spiritual ceremony is not likely to happen at your local cracker barrel
#excusetherhetoricalquestion

TU Curmudgeon said:

Please explain how LEV 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." does not specifically call for homosexuals to be killed.

Click to expand...

God was not giving Americans specific instructions pertaining to America of today in Leviticus 20. He was talking to Jews of Moses' day, giving the Jews specific instructions. Leviticus 20 begins at verse 1 with:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...

TU Curmudgeon said:

Obviously LEV 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." didn't get included in your copy of "The Bible".

Click to expand...

The verse is in my Bible also, and God intends modern Christians to properly understand those verses. God instructed the Jews to wipe out the Amalakites also, but He was not talking to modern Americans and did not intend modern Americans to think they will please God by murdering any Amalakite they see.

JasperL said:

The public accommodation laws of the CRA require prohibit some businesses from discriminating or denying service based on race, religion, etc. and some states have added sexual orientation to that list. So they can refuse service for any reason, so long as that reason is NOT race, religion.... Whites ONLY! signs went to the wayside after the CRA, thankfully.

Click to expand...

Actually, the segregation laws of the southern States were already being changed prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Businesses only segregated because the laws in those southern States required them to be separate. That began to change during the mid- to late-1950s. Once those laws were abolished businesses gladly welcomed blacks and anyone else willing to pay for their goods and services. Businesses are in business to make a profit, not to discriminate. It was actually the boycotts of southern businesses, like Rosa Park's boycott against the Montgomery Bus company in 1955, that began changing those laws in the southern States. Again, this is was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Glitch said:

Actually, the segregation laws of the southern States were already being changed prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Businesses only segregated because the laws in those southern States required them to be separate. That began to change during the mid- to late-1950s. Once those laws were abolished businesses gladly welcomed blacks and anyone else willing to pay for their goods and services. Businesses are in business to make a profit, not to discriminate. It was actually the boycotts of southern businesses, like Rosa Park's boycott against the Montgomery Bus company in 1955, that began changing those laws in the southern States. Again, this is was before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Click to expand...

Right, it was a process, not a single act, like all big shifts in society, but the CRA itself was pretty important and its importance was reflected by the bitter opposition to it by southern whites.

Stealers Wheel said:

Perhaps you could enlighten us as which 'religious view' CB disagrees with.

I have a religious view that paying taxes is an abomination in the eyes of God and all those who do so shall be condemned to Hell for all eternity. You think that holds any sway with the government come April 15th? But you think the government is truly moved by some azzhole who thinks gay people are worthy of death?

Click to expand...

It would be illegal for a restaurant to deny you (or a group you were part of) service because of that belief, yes.

TU Curmudgeon said:

So, if "Billy Bob's Uniquely Right (wing) Christian -Thal- -Theu- -Thalu- -Thealug- Bible and Divinity School" [a wholly owned subsidiary of Billy Bob's Only True Original Fundamentalist Four-Square Evangelical Revived Reformed Revealed Biblical Church of Jesus Christ The Perfect Arisen Son Of The Living God World Awakening (Just Send Us Your Folding Money Because Worship Should Be Silent) All Aryan White Soul's Salvation, Redemption, and Witnessing Storefront Mission, B-B-Q, Gun & Body Shop. (INC)] where the motto is "God has already told us what to think, and we'll tell you so you don't have to." has a hall that it rents out to the "KKK", "American Nazi Party", and the "Kick All The Jews Out Coalition", it would have to rent it to the "American Anarco-Communist Nudist Group Sex With Children In Public Alliance" if the AA-CNGSWCIPA wanted to rent it - right?

Click to expand...

Political views aren’t protected under the CRA (though there’s a good argument to be made that they should be). In any case, religious organizations aren’t subject to anti-discrimination laws to the same extent as secular businesses.

JasperL said:

I believe this is the law:

42 U.S. Code SS 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



I can only speak to this area, but I am positive Christians, including Baptists like that preacher, are the TARGET audience for CB, they welcome them with open arms, and their place is full of after church families on Sunday all day long. So there isn't any question CB did NOT refuse him service because of his "religion." This isn't a "NO JEWS ALLOWED" thing, or the equivalent for Baptists.

They refused his event because he called for genocide. There is no question that same guy would have been welcomed to CB but for that videotaped sermon calling for government to round up and kill all the gays.

It's not at all clear to me that falls under the protections of the CRA, just because he can cite a verse in Leviticus to back up that viewpoint. The 'discrimination' wasn't due to his "religion" but his calls for genocide, which isn't to my knowledge an integral part of Christianity, and something that society (nearly) universally condemns.

And if a neo-Nazi group claims that their belief in rounding up and slaughtering Jews is a "religious" belief, do they gain the protections of CRA?

Click to expand...

Particular interpretations (including uncommon interpretations) of a religion are just as protected as religions writ large.

Moderate Right said:

You're talking about two different things. The KKK is not a religion and therefore not a protected class. This person was discriminated against due to his religious beliefs.

Click to expand...

Really;.. so Cracker barrel doesn't allow Christians?

jaeger19 said:

Really;.. so Cracker barrel doesn't allow Christians?

Click to expand...

The law is the law. Doesn't matter if you allow millions of Christians, Muslims, gays, or whatever to come into your restaurant. All you have to do is discriminate against one and you could lose a court case of discrimination.

AmNat said:

It would be illegal for a restaurant to deny you (or a group you were part of) service because of that belief, yes.

Click to expand...

So it is your contention that any church any time can decide to hold their services in a restaurant, and that restaurant is compelled by law to accommodate that church?

And you have legal precedent to support your assertion? Please cite it.

AmNat said:

Political views aren’t protected under the CRA (though there’s a good argument to be made that they should be). In any case, religious organizations aren’t subject to anti-discrimination laws to the same extent as secular businesses.

Particular interpretations (including uncommon interpretations) of a religion are just as protected as religions writ large.

Click to expand...

That illustrates my problem quite nicely.

1) "Political" views (such as genocide of gays) aren't protected, if spoken by, say, neo-Nazis.
2) If I call that identical "political" view instead a "religious" view, or justify that same view with a verse in the bible, then I gain special privileges.

I've looked and can't find any support for that.

More to the point for me is we know CB doesn't discriminate against "Christians." I don't know what their national sales look like, but it's safe to say they serve millions and millions of Christians every year with open, welcome arms. So they aren't discriminating based on "religion" but on a call to genocide.

Here's some analysis of the Masterpiece Bakery case. This is from a concurring opinion I think, but it's applicable to my point. The context is better explained in the text, but I'm quoting just a bit:

Religious exemption to public accommodation laws rejected by Supreme Court while those laws cannot be administered in a way that demonstrates hostility to religion or that unfairly discriminates among religious beliefs | Joseph William Singer

Justices Kagan and Breyer disagreed with this part of the majority decision and argued that the cases were easily distinguishable. While they cannot be distinguished on the basis of whether government officials find the messages conveyed by the cakes offensive, they can be distinguished by the presence or absence of discrimination.

“The three bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack requested them to make a cake (one denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage) that they would not have made for any customer. In refusing that request, the bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but instead treated him in the same way they would have treated anyone else—just as CADA requires.

Click to expand...

This appears to say that so long as CB in this case denied all groups calling for genocide permission to have an event on their property, they're OK, because the basis of their refusal has nothing to do with "religion" - we KNOW CB gives figurative bear hugs to Christians as customers - but with the call for genocide. That seems like a common sense, obvious, distinction to me, and I've yet to find anything that says or requires otherwise.

That would allow them to deny events for neo-Nazis calling for genocide, because of their call for genocide, and also deny events for a whack job preacher calling for genocide, but who says, "God told me so" to explain it. That seems like the right call all around.

JasperL said:

Right, it was a process, not a single act, like all big shifts in society, but the CRA itself was pretty important and its importance was reflected by the bitter opposition to it by southern whites.

Click to expand...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Democratic Party come lately, after-the-fact. After the majority of the southern States had already changed their laws, and more than a decade after the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. So the importance of that federal law was considerably less than you give it.

Glitch said:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Democratic Party come lately, after-the-fact. After the majority of the southern States had already changed their laws, and more than a decade after the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. So the importance of that federal law was considerably less than you give it.

Click to expand...

Sheesh. All that's missing from that claim is a single link to a shred of evidence. I also suppose 250,000 blacks marched in Washington D.C. in 1963 for nothing, then. And the voting rights act was also for nothing because, you know, by that time the South had already changed....

JasperL said:

Sheesh. All that's missing from that claim is a single link to a shred of evidence. I also suppose 250,000 blacks marched in Washington D.C. in 1963 for nothing, then. And the voting rights act was also for nothing because, you know, by that time the South had already changed....

Click to expand...

By the time Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the southern States had largely already changed. In other words the States had already adopted the majority of the Civil Rights Act before Congress even voted on the bill. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was mostly just LBJ's propaganda in an attempt to pacify the anger being expressed. The southern States would support a Democrat bigot from Alabama one last time in 1968 before being replaced. The majority of the changes in the south happened during the 1950s and early 1960s. Democrats finally lost their bigoted grip on the southern States and the people began electing Republicans instead. Which is why Nixon won those southern States in 1972 that voted for Wallace in 1968.

marke said:

God was not giving Americans specific instructions pertaining to America of today in Leviticus 20. He was talking to Jews of Moses' day, giving the Jews specific instructions. Leviticus 20 begins at verse 1 with:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your enlightening observation that "The Bible" does not speak to the Americans of today.

Since "Christianity" foots itself on "The Bible", I presume that that means that no so-called "Christian" denomination in the United States of America qualifies as being a "religion" and that would mean that all of their operations would (and should) be fully subject to all of the laws of the United States of America - INCLUDING the laws requiring operations to pay taxes.

AmNat said:

It would be illegal for a restaurant to deny you (or a group you were part of) service because of that belief, yes.



Political views aren’t protected under the CRA (though there’s a good argument to be made that they should be). In any case, religious organizations aren’t subject to anti-discrimination laws to the same extent as secular businesses.



Particular interpretations (including uncommon interpretations) of a religion are just as protected as religions writ large.

Click to expand...

Would you like to sit at the table next to me? I should advise you that my religion requires me to urinate on the food of others in order to ensure that they receive "God's Blessing"?

Stealers Wheel said:

So, is this an example of corporate America stomping on the 1st amendment? Is this another battle in the war against christianity? A weasley corporation striving to be "politically correct"? Is it time for all God-fearing Americans to boycott Cracker Barrel? Shall we throw up pickets in front of all their stores?

Or should Cracker Barrel be applauded for taking a stand against religious hatred and bigotry?

Click to expand...

It's not a "war against Christianity" or any of that, nor is it a 1st amendment issue. Cracker Barrel is under no obligation to host this guys special event and if they don't want to, they don't have to.