Recommended Posts

So, they ASSUME it was someone of Islamic faith who complained... Based upon?

Moreover, McD is a restaurant, not a meeting place. I have worked there, and not once was it used for group meetings - moreover if people were sat and not eating, they'd often be moved on.

yeah, could of been a Jewish person offended by non-jewish teachings!

I wouldn't become offended by such a group, but the Bible promotes many immoral values (e.g. it states that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, and it states bad things should happen to those who work on Sundays, among other terrible atrocities), so I'm not sure whether I believe they should have been banned or not, but I question the appropriateness of her group (considering what the Bible states), and I don't believe the Bible should be looked at as a source for what good morals are. Due to that, I'm just unsure about what would have been best in regard to this decision.

To those who support this lady's case, would you condemn McDonald's for banning someone from holding a group in which murder was promoted as good? Even if this lady does not promote murder as good, the book she's praising and using does.

I'm genuinely trying to come to a conclusion regarding this, which is why I'm kind of playing devil's advocate, asking these questions.

I wouldn't become offended by such a group, but the Bible promotes many immoral values (e.g. it states that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, and it states bad things should happen to those who work on Sundays, among other terrible atrocities). I'm not sure whether I believe they should have been banned or not, but I question the appropriateness of her group (considering what the Bible states), and I don't believe the Bible should be looked at as a source for what good morals are.

Just pretend it was a gay pride group, then you'll get the idea of how these people felt. ;)

Not to further go off topic, but, what? Where in the Bible does it say to stone misbehaving children to death? IIRC that was reserved for adults who committed crimes, and even then that was Old Testament.

  • Like 2

Oh wait, so when an airline does it to an Atheist they're just exercising their right as a business to exclude people from using their services, but the moment it's done to a Christian it's discrimination. I love how people's opinions on things like this flip flop depending on what the group being targeted by the business believes.

No, it is actually discrimination in both cases.

I wouldn't become offended by such a group, but the Bible promotes many immoral values (e.g. it states that misbehaving children should be stoned to death, and it states bad things should happen to those who work on Sundays, among other terrible atrocities), so I'm not sure whether I believe they should have been banned or not, but I question the appropriateness of her group (considering what the Bible states), and I don't believe the Bible should be looked at as a source for what good morals are. Due to that, I'm just unsure about what would have been best in regard to this decision.

To those who support this lady's case, would you condemn McDonald's for banning someone from holding a group in which murder was promoted as good? Even if this lady does not promote murder as good, the book she's praising and using does.

I'm genuinely trying to come to a conclusion regarding this, which is why I'm kind of playing devil's advocate, asking these questions.

Anybody that gives you those interpretations of the bible is being outright ridiculous! The bible doesn't condone stoning children to death or punishing people that work on Sundays. ;)

There are public forums where rehabilitation groups can go and usually even churches themselves with accept them. If the restaurant owner/manager wants to allow it that's great, but to expect it is being unrealistic.

What I find interesting is that the owner/manager did allow it, up until someone with a stick up their bum got their panties in a twist about it. Political correctness, whee...

Just pretend it was a gay pride group, then you'll get the idea of how these people felt. ;)

[. . .]

That's a great point. It's one reason why I'm not sure what to think about this yet. I feel that everyone should have a right to hold such groups, but as the Bible promotes such terrible values, the idea that they're holding the group makes me uncomfortable. I think I'll end up concluding that they shouldn't have been banned :)

[. . .]

Not to further go off topic, but, what? Where in the Bible does it say to stone misbehaving children to death? IIRC that was reserved for adults who committed crimes, and even then that was Old Testament.

It is in the Old Testament. It's in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. That passage states the following:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

Even if that was reserved for adults (something the passage makes clear isn't the case), it's still a terrible value to promote. Stoning is awful torture.

By the way, I added to my post just before you replied, if you care to answer the question I've now posed, please :)

What I find interesting is that the owner/manager did allow it, up until someone with a stick up their bum got their panties in a twist about it. Political correctness, whee...

For two years it was going on. Someone complained, and I agree that there is an amount of pressure on management to please everyone (the customer is always right). There really isn't any room for an uproar in the decision though since it is their right.

Martinez, who could not be reached for comment, believes someone of Islamic faith was at the restaurant and may have been offended enough to make a complaint. Martinez said the religion had been a brief topic of discussion last week.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/two-year-old-bible-study-for-homeless-at-mcdonalds-no-longer-welcomed-78245/

"But usually when there are Muslims there they will take it upon themselves to ask me questions or to give me their viewpoint, but this is the first time that I know that someone has made a complaint," she said. "I believe that's the only explanation that makes sense to me right now. It could have been the praying, but I've been there two years and I've never changed anything. I really don't know any other reason."

Well, gee, I believe it could be more likely that homeless addicts were the reason for complaint as opposed to, ya know, a phantom Muslim who may have complained (And for whom there appears to be no evidence whatsoever of having done so).

That's a great point. It's one reason why I'm not sure what to think about this yet. I feel that everyone should have a right to hold such groups, but as the Bible promotes such terrible values, the idea that they're holding the group makes me uncomfortable. I think I'll end up concluding that they shouldn't have been banned :)

It is in the Old Testament. It's in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. That passage states the following:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

Even if that was reserved for adults, it's still a terrible value to promote. Stoning is awful torture.

By the way, I added to my post before you replied, if you care to answer the question I've now posed, please :)

First of all, when Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, the old testament rules no longer applied from that point on. That is why we have the new testament! Second of all, that is not to be taken literally. It is basically saying that the parents should seek outside help for the child (not literally have him stoned to death)!

Anybody that gives you those interpretations of the bible is being outright ridiculous! The bible doesn't condone stoning children to death or punishing people that work on Sundays. ;)

I've just quoted a passage of the Bible to Charisma that clearly states misbehaving children should be stoned :) I don't see how that could be interpreted in any other way. When I post against the Bible, you can be assured that I'm not going off others' interpretations, I'm going off what I have read. I'm currently in the process of reading the entire Bible :)

It is basically saying that the parents should seek outside help for the child (not literally have him stoned to death)!

Keep telling yourself that.

The bible says something I do not like, so I will decide it actually means something else.

How clever.

First of all, when Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, the old testament rules no longer applied from that point on. That is why we have the new testament! Second of all, that is not to be taken literally. It is basically saying that the parents should seek outside help for the child (not literally have him stoned to death)!

But the Old Testament still exists in the Bible, which was my point. I'm not referring to what Christians believe; I'm referring to what's in the book she's promoting as good.

Some people will take that literally, and nothing states it shouldn't be taken literally. You could well be wrong by suggesting it shouldn't be taken literally.

As I mention, I will probably conclude that this group shouldn't have been banned. But it's important we discuss the appropriateness of the tools she's using in the group, considering people might have different views regarding a group that specifically promotes murder as good :)

I don't know, I consider McDonald's a "public place", don't you? If someone got offended, it means they were basically eavesdropping on what another table was talking about. Can I get people kicked out of a restaurant because I overheard them saying I'm ugly and was offended by it? Honestly, this is no different. People need to mind their own damn business.

Well they are still privately owned and they can tell whoever they want to leave.

  • Like 2

But the Old Testament still exists in the Bible, which was my point. I'm not referring to what Christians believe; I'm referring to what's in the book she's promoting as good.

Some people will take that literally, and nothing states it shouldn't be taken literally. You could well be wrong by suggesting it shouldn't be taken literally.

As I mention, I will probably conclude that this group shouldn't have been banned. But it's important we discuss the appropriateness of the tools she's using in the group, considering people might have different views regarding a group that specifically promotes murder as good :)

1) I never "promoted it as good", be careful what you imply ;) I simply said I never remembered that being part of the text.

2) I thought maybe that was the passage you were thinking of. The English translation is unclear, but the original meaning was not of a small child, we're talking a rebellious teen/older kid, in a time period when you were meant to be working and acting as an adult at a much younger age than we do these days. Still doesn't necessarily make it right, but taken in the context of the society at the time, not nearly so bad as you were making it sound.

People forget that the Bible was written two thousand years ago, when society and culture was quite different. It's meant to be taken and the principles and concepts adapted and applied to our culture these days. Exact methods of punishment have changed, just like the "sins" people can commit have changed.

Just like learning moral values from your parents--they can't possibly instill in you every possible response to every possible scenario, you have to learn the underlying basics and apply it to life.

To those who support this lady's case, would you condemn McDonald's for banning someone from holding a group in which murder was promoted as good? Even if this lady does not promote murder as good, the book she's praising and using does.

Since you asked so nicely.. ;)

Honestly, if no actual murders had been committed? Probably would have an issue, yeah. I've heard people talking about a LOT of things I don't agree with when I'm out and about. That doesn't mean I think their right to talk about it or meet up with like-minded people to talk about it should be taken away. If they're sitting in a restaurant, they have bought food/drinks/whatever and would have a right to be there if they *weren't* having a particular discussion, at their own table, between themselves, then it boils down to you trying to take away their freedom of speech. This is way less intrusive than the folks on the street yelling at passers-by and shoving tracts in people's faces, for example.

1) I never "promoted it as good", be careful what you imply ;) I simply said I never remembered that being part of the text.

I was referring to the lady in the group, not you :) I thought that was obvious, as it was a reply to another poster that didn't mention you or didn't mention any of your posts. I apologise if that wasn't clear.

I meant that the lady is holding the group because she believes what the Bible teaches is good. That is an assumption, so I probably should have suggested that's why she's doing it (rather than assumed), but I'm confident she wouldn't be holding it because she believes what the Bible teaches is bad, and the fact she includes former drug addicts in her group indicated to me that is how she feels about the Bible.

2) I thought maybe that was the passage you were thinking of. The English translation is unclear, but the original meaning was not of a small child, we're talking a rebellious teen/older kid, in a time period when you were meant to be working and acting as an adult at a much younger age than we do these days. Still doesn't necessarily make it right, but taken in the context of the society at the time, not nearly so bad as you were making it sound.

I disagree. Stoning is awful torture; it is a terrible punishment no matter the context, and I deem it pretty much just as bad whether it's a child, a rebellious teenager, or an adult. It's still torturing a living organism.

People forget that the Bible was written two thousand years ago, when society and culture was quite different. It's meant to be taken and the principles and concepts adapted and applied to our culture these days. Exact methods of punishment have changed, just like the "sins" people can commit have changed.

Just like learning moral values from your parents--they can't possibly instill in you every possible response to every possible scenario, you have to learn the underlying basics and apply it to life.

I don't forget that it was written then, I just don't deem a book that contains such content moral. I'm aware that such punishments may have been deemed acceptable by society in those days, but it is up to the individual to go against the consensus if an issue is wrong, and the authors of the Bible didn't do that. I form my view against the consensus when an issue is wrong, so there's no excuse for people not doing that in those days. If they thought stoning was fine, why look to such a book for morals?

Private business. Just as an airport can deny a passenger the ability to fly because of their shirt, this business can deny people who are "loitering" from staying in their business.

It isn't any type of oppression. It is called business.

Plus, Atheist don't have groups, that would require an actually belief of something, in which Atheist don't have.

Christians are putting waay to much empahsis on this. Doesn't matter if they were allowed to before, they can't now. It is the business that gets to decide. Have the meetings at home, at Church, or some other area that is actually public. My business is open to the public, but not to non paying customers, or customers who give us a bad image. We get rid of them quickly.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!