Jump to content

The Interesting Thing About This Article To Me Is Not….


JDaveG
 Share

Recommended Posts

…..that it happened, but the presumptions about what happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/05/women-ordered-to-stop-praying-inside-mall/?intcmp=obnetwork

The nutshell version is that a group of ladies were walking in a Dublin, Georgia shopping mall, and before they walked, they got in a circle and quietly prayed. A mall cop told them they weren't allowed to pray in the mall because they've had trouble with people proselytizing, and the ladies informed him they weren't doing that, they were just quietly praying. They called the mall management and asked, and it was confirmed that praying is banned in the mall, even over meals, etc.

But then there was this quote:

Tammy said she understands that the mall is indeed private property and they have a right to dictate appropriate rules and regulations.

​I wonder if anyone would agree with that statement -- that the mall is private property and they have the right to dictate rules and regulations that say private citizens cannot pray on their property. It would seem to me the same public accommodation laws that allow local governments to fine businesses for not baking cakes or providing photography for same sex weddings ought to apply here. And yet the presumption of this group is "well, it's their property, they can do what they want."

Is that true? Should it be true? How is this incident different from the baker or the photographer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe the distinction is in denying them service? If the mall refuses to accommodate or serve them because they quietly prayed then it certainly sounds like the same thing to me.

I suppose, then, it depends on what the mall wishes to do if they refuse to stop praying.

Were one inclined, one could push the issue. My attitude towards most things in life is "you tell me the rules, and I'll play by them, but we're both playing by the same set of rules." Maybe the good people of Dublin need to have a pray-in and test the mall's resolve. And if they ask them to leave or refuse them service, refuse to leave and sue them blind. If they get the cops involved, sue them too.

Ordinarily I don't like such tactics. But that seems to be the rules of engagement, so maybe it's time to engage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get down to Dublin every now and then on business. I think I'll stop at the mall and make a glorious display of praying over my meal next time I'm there. One of the hallmarks of convert Orthodox is we make the sign of the cross so big you can see it from outer space. I could also chant my meal prayers in the tone of the day. We don't usually do that, but why not?

Agitate. It's the American way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get down to Dublin every now and then on business. I think I'll stop at the mall and make a glorious display of praying over my meal next time I'm there. One of the hallmarks of convert Orthodox is we make the sign of the cross so big you can see it from outer space. I could also chant my meal prayers in the tone of the day. We don't usually do that, but why not?

Agitate. It's the American way.

When I was a kid...single digits, it snowed in Dublin...I knew it was a big deal cause the grown-ups were totally freaking out , lol.

Speaking your mind or doing your 'thing' will always agitate someone, somewhere...no biggie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. That's why you're one of my favorites bro.

U2 man....see here is the thing, non christians try to portray us all with a cookie cutter stereotype of meek humble milktoasts....thing is you can be a complete azzhole and still be a christian. That is what they don't understand, a lot of us christians are actually sinning cursing drinking azzholes ....just take me for example...cool.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

…..that it happened, but the presumptions about what happened.

http://www.foxnews.c...ntcmp=obnetwork

The nutshell version is that a group of ladies were walking in a Dublin, Georgia shopping mall, and before they walked, they got in a circle and quietly prayed. A mall cop told them they weren't allowed to pray in the mall because they've had trouble with people proselytizing, and the ladies informed him they weren't doing that, they were just quietly praying. They called the mall management and asked, and it was confirmed that praying is banned in the mall, even over meals, etc.

But then there was this quote:

​I wonder if anyone would agree with that statement -- that the mall is private property and they have the right to dictate rules and regulations that say private citizens cannot pray on their property. It would seem to me the same public accommodation laws that allow local governments to fine businesses for not baking cakes or providing photography for same sex weddings ought to apply here. And yet the presumption of this group is "well, it's their property, they can do what they want."

Is that true? Should it be true? How is this incident different from the baker or the photographer?

Here's the difference in my eyes. If they were banning prayer by just Christians it would be more in line with the bakeries issue. They ban prayer by ALL religions so there is no discrimination there or denial of service.

Now the bakery issue is an interesting one because it is akin to segregation policies by not serving "a certain type of people". The only difference is the religious beliefs aspect. To me, it's a slippery slope. What if someone decides serving any group of people is against their religious beliefs?

I personally don't think serving gay people is against anyone's religion. They aren't asking to certify or validate their marriage--they just want a cake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the difference in my eyes. If they were banning prayer by just Christians it would be more in line with the bakeries issue. They ban prayer by ALL religions so there is no discrimination there or denial of service.

Now the bakery issue is an interesting one because it is akin to segregation policies by not serving "a certain type of people". The only difference is the religious beliefs aspect. To me, it's a slippery slope. What if someone decides serving any group of people is against their religious beliefs?

I personally don't think serving gay people is against anyone's religion. They aren't asking to certify or validate their marriage--they just want a cake...

The baker case did not involve refusing to serve homosexuals. In fact, everyone involved in that case acknowledged the baker didn't refuse service to homosexuals. He just didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. So it wasn't a refusal of service to all homosexuals, it was a desire not to participate in a particular ceremony by baking a cake that celebrates it. If a homosexual couple had come in and asked for a birthday cake, or some cupcakes, or whatever, the baker said he would have gladly done so. Again, this was not disputed in the proceedings by any party or the judge.

And how is banning "prayer by all religions" not discriminating? It may be a wider discrimination, but it's still discrimination. The mall decided that religious expression is not allowed in their building. Religion is still one of the enumerated classes in federal civil rights law. How is banning all religious expression somehow allowed when the law says you cannot discriminate in hiring or service on the basis of religion?

If the mall said they didn't want Africans in their mall, and it turned out they didn't simply want to ban black people, but anyone from Africa, is it not discrimination based on national origin just because white Afrikaners or Arabic north Africans are included in the ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm mistaken, the photographer and baker both did those things in states that include homosexuals as protected classes which means discriminating against them for getting married gets included. In this case they asked people to stop praying due to problems they had before with religious people. It comes off draconian since you can tell the difference between people evangelizing and people who are just praying but I don't see it as discrimination against Christians or religious people in general, rather it's a poorly thought out policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm mistaken, the photographer and baker both did those things in states that include homosexuals as protected classes which means discriminating against them for getting married gets included. In this case they asked people to stop praying due to problems they had before with religious people. It comes off draconian since you can tell the difference between people evangelizing and people who are just praying but I don't see it as discrimination against Christians or religious people in general, rather it's a poorly thought out policy.

I wasn't arguing what they did in those states didn't violate the law. I was simply arguing the difference that was articulated isn't a real difference at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't arguing what they did in those states didn't violate the law. I was simply arguing the difference that was articulated isn't a real difference at all.

If the mall's policy was specifically geared towards discriminating against Christians or another religion then sure, but it comes off as a generalized policy that is way too broad and draconian in curbing a previously existing problem of people evangelizing others who just want to shop. Hopefully this being pointed out makes them realize how idiotic it is to ban people praying to themselves to prevent evangelization.

Meanwhile with the other two it is clear the businesses made the decisions to discriminate against certain people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The baker case did not involve refusing to serve homosexuals. In fact, everyone involved in that case acknowledged the baker didn't refuse service to homosexuals. He just didn't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. So it wasn't a refusal of service to all homosexuals, it was a desire not to participate in a particular ceremony by baking a cake that celebrates it. If a homosexual couple had come in and asked for a birthday cake, or some cupcakes, or whatever, the baker said he would have gladly done so. Again, this was not disputed in the proceedings by any party or the judge.

And how is banning "prayer by all religions" not discriminating? It may be a wider discrimination, but it's still discrimination. The mall decided that religious expression is not allowed in their building. Religion is still one of the enumerated classes in federal civil rights law. How is banning all religious expression somehow allowed when the law says you cannot discriminate in hiring or service on the basis of religion?

If the mall said they didn't want Africans in their mall, and it turned out they didn't simply want to ban black people, but anyone from Africa, is it not discrimination based on national origin just because white Afrikaners or Arabic north Africans are included in the ban?

Still though, he's not affirming the marriage by providing a cake.

They aren't banning any religious people from entering the building or shopping, they just can't practice their religion on private property nor can anyone else pray either. That's not discrimination. That's about the same as having a rule that people have to wear socks and shoes to enter. It applies to everyone not a small group of people. The Africa example doesn't work because that's singling out a group of people. No one is being singled out in this case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still though, he's not affirming the marriage by providing a cake.

Well, that's what you say. It's not what he said. But that's immaterial. The principle is what is at issue. He didn't refuse to serve homosexuals in all circumstances, only one very narrow circumstance.

They aren't banning any religious people from entering the building or shopping, they just can't practice their religion on private property nor can anyone else pray either. That's not discrimination. That's about the same as having a rule that people have to wear socks and shoes to enter. It applies to everyone not a small group of people. The Africa example doesn't work because that's singling out a group of people. No one is being singled out in this case...

You don't seem to grasp how the civil rights laws work. National origin is protected. Religion is protected. You can't discriminate based on either. So you will have to show that a ban on prayer is not discrimination based on religion (versus, say, non-religion). The caselaw is pretty clear that the establishment clause, for example, applies to ensure that government cannot establish religion over non-religion. You'll need to show why the same principle shouldn't apply in reverse in this instance. Why should a public accommodation be able to say "well, we don't allow anyone to pray, so we're not discriminating against anyone" when the practical effect is that ONLY religious believers will be affected by the ban? How can you possibly say that isn't singling anyone out? Again, just because it's a wide group of people who are discriminated against doesn't argue it isn't discrimination. We don't allow discrimination against women, and they are over half the population!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...