Bible study group no longer welcome at McDonald's

[Calum Veteran]

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.

Excellently put :)

If these people were buying products every time they came and weren't causing a disturbance?if they were just sitting at the table discussing among themselves?I can't think of any justifiable reason for a ban. That is, as I say, if they weren't actually intentionally disturbing others. If someone overheard them discussing among themselves and became offended, they have no justification for wanting the group banned. As you mentioned, if you overheard someone state you're ugly, you wouldn't be able to reasonably request they be banned.

If a "Bible study group" aren't intentionally causing a disturbance and are discussing among themselves, isn't that just the same as any other group of people who are having a conversation about any other topic? You know, what a lot of people tend to do while they're eating in McDonald's?

As I say, I should perhaps hear more details about what was involved in their meetings and why this person became offended. Being offended isn't always justified; anyone can say they're offended by anything.

[Calum Veteran]

Excellently put :)

If these people were buying products every time they came and weren't causing a disturbance?if they were just sitting at the table discussing among themselves?I can't think of any justifiable reason for a ban. That is, as I say, if they weren't actually intentionally disturbing others. If someone overheard them discussing among themselves and became offended, they have no justification for wanting the group banned. As you mentioned, if you overheard someone state you're ugly, you wouldn't be able to reasonably request they be banned.

If a "Bible study group" aren't intentionally causing a disturbance and are discussing among themselves, isn't that just the same as any other group of people who are having a conversation about any other topic? You know, what a lot of people tend to do while they're eating in McDonald's?

As I say, I should perhaps hear more details about what was involved in their meetings and why this person became offended. Being offended isn't always justified; anyone can say they're offended by anything.

Having said all of the above, I'm not sure how far freedom of speech should go, in all cases. Hate speech is against the law in the UK, for great reasons (and I believe the US should follow suit), so if a group were promoting hate speech, I am not sure whether my views posted above would stand. Considering what is in the Bible, this group could have been promoting dangerous speech or hate speech, so as I mention, I'd have to know more details. If they were talking about the "nice" parts of the Bible, my thoughts in the above post may stand.

[articuno1au]

Quotes himself, quad posts and doesn't afraid of nothing :p

[Calum Veteran]

Quotes himself, quad posts and doesn't afraid of nothing :p

Doing any of that isn't against our rules, as long as the content in the posts abides by our rules. The quad posting rarely happens, to be fair, heh; I just hadn't noticed the other reply, each time, when I did that the other day (as members posted their reply just before I'd submitted a reply to the previous post). But feel free to follow how I reply to people, if you'd like :D I'd actually appreciate that, as I enjoy reading your posts ;)

[articuno1au]

Ha, I was just fooling around :p

I edit all my posts to make them a single post. I miss the auto-combine posts thingy :(

You enjoy reading my posts D: Thanks >.<

[Sir Topham Hatt]

I know a group of fellow Christians who meet in Starbucks for meetings over coffee.

Just because the meeting is about a religion, doesn't mean it's outright shouting at people about God or singing songs. . .

[articuno1au]

Yeah, more to the issue is that these events are normally sprawling with little sub groups talking about different things or taking up tons of space.

I'm guessing there is a lot more to the story than has been revealed, but I doubt McDonalds are anti-christians in their stores >.>

[Dick Montage]

I know some of you kids don't have a clue or an education, but this isn't funny and is disrespectful.

I know some of you oldies don't have a sense of humour, but this is funny and your tone is disrespectful

[logicwin]

has everyone forgot the term loitering? the comments from the manager would suggest that the group was using the area for meeting up without buying anything, it doesnt matter who you are but if you're loitering you would get kicked out to make room for others

[HawkMan]

why is everyone assuming it's only one complaint. and notseveral complaints over a longer period that caused this ?

[Nick H. Supervisor]

I know some of you kids don't have a clue or an education, but this isn't funny and is disrespectful.

In all seriousness, how is it disrespectful? It seems like a valid suggestion to me, since if the Church were in charge of the store they could dictate policy however they saw fit. During one of the discussions about Windows 8, someone pointed out to me that Microsoft don't have to bend to my will because it is not my operating system. If I wanted an OS that worked the way I wanted it to work then I should go and build my own. The same reasonable point is being made about Christians opening a fast food restaurant, there's nothing disrespectful in that.

[mudslag]

A Bible Study or Science Study should be allowed. It's irrelevant if you agree with it or not. It's freedom dude. I am very unhappy with the way this nation and this world is going.

I just want to close my eyes and get to the end.

Freedom to have a study does not include the freedom to have it where you want, dude.

[~Johnny]

why is everyone assuming it's only one complaint. and notseveral complaints over a longer period that caused this ?

Probably because it says there "was a complaint".

I'm going to assume that "people are getting offended" means they were kicked out just because it was a religious thing, and not particularly a group thing. No one's going to get offended at a group of people who eat some McDonald's all the time. As long as they're paying for food - which considering they're atually going to a McDonalds to do so, they probably are - then I don't see why there should have been a problem.

[mudslag]

Playing devil's advocate. Had this been a Muslim group holding a meeting and a Christian family/group walked in, my money would be on them complaining about the Muslims. In all fairness you can substitute Muslims and Christians with just about anyone, even Atheist. Bickering is going to happen no matter who doing it, specially in such a public domain like McDonalds.

[Mando]

I would complain too. I think it rude to do that there. go to a community center or a park. If the manager does not want you in the restaurant doing that, it is his/her right.

too true mate, I mean you cant walk into your local computer store to hold a meeting of Silicon Anonymous can you....what nonsense, its a retail establishment to go and eat..........

[Praetor]

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 :)

way offtopic. and biased. and wrong.

[Calum Veteran]

way offtopic. and biased. and wrong.

It isn't off topic. The Bible promotes murder as good, and this topic is about a Bible study group. My post was completely on topic.

It is not biased at all. Please do not make unfounded accusations, if you're not even going to attempt to back them up. You could suggest I'm biased and then say why (and I'll happily prove you wrong), but making accusations and not even stating why you feel that way is wrong.

[Rohdekill]

So you're telling me, is that if two people are having a conversation about a topic you disagree with then they must leave the restaurant? This is the world we're living in?

Two patrons having a private discussion, where reasonable privacy is expected and if you overhear something you do not like, can just move to another table to beyond that of the vocal range. The vocal range consumes little distance and the volume is usually that of the surrounding conversations.

However, with a group, seated at multiple tables (as McD's tables/chairs are bolted down), the group consumes a much larger space. In doing so, the speaker must talk loud enough to cover the space as well as talk over the surrounding conversations going on. One cannot always just get up and move outside of vocal range as the range covers much more distance and is of greater volume which results in fewer open seats available for anyone wishing to seat beyond the vocal range.

[Noir Angel]

Whenever this happens to a religious group somebody's going to cry about oppression but when the something similar happened to an Atheist aboard an AA plane, people pretty much argued that it was the right of the company to admit whoever they pleased. Now some people have to make their minds up, either it's acceptable regardless of what the group believes or not acceptable regardless of what the group believes. As much as I personally dislike religion I wouldn't find their presence to be a problem as long as they didn't make an excessive amount of noise, didn't preach to people outside of their group and (being homeless) weren't unsanitary. People sit in restaurants and talk about a whole bunch of crap and it's usually easy enough to get on with your meal and ignore them.

[MikeChipshop Member]

McDonald's isn't a meeting place for support groups, it's a crappy fast food restaurant. It doesn't even do food very well! :p

[Growled Member]

It is not biased at all.

Oh, I agree, everyone one of your posts are completely unbiased. :p

[HawkMan]

Probably because it says there "was a complaint".

I'm going to assume that "people are getting offended" means they were kicked out just because it was a religious thing, and not particularly a group thing. No one's going to get offended at a group of people who eat some McDonald's all the time. As long as they're paying for food - which considering they're atually going to a McDonalds to do so, they probably are - then I don't see why there should have been a problem.

But if you read the article that seems to be something the writer inferred. not an actual fact given by the employee.

[Calum Veteran]

Oh, I agree, everyone one of your posts are completely unbiased. :p

They are. I pride myself on never being biased and always being completely fair :) If you're insinuating otherwise, please don't do so without attempting to provide proof (which I will most likely be able to prove wrong).

[~Johnny]

It isn't off topic. The Bible promotes murder as good, and this topic is about a Bible study group. My post was completely on topic.

It is not biased at all. Please do not make unfounded accusations, if you're not even going to attempt to back them up. You could suggest I'm biased and then say why (and I'll happily prove you wrong), but making accusations and not even stating why you feel that way is wrong.

It most certainly does not. Though shalt not kill is one of the most basic commandments :p (And a lot of the New Testament is meant to overwrites the teachings of the old, and there's most certainly nothing in there promoting murder too). You're simply not allowed to kill!

[mudslag]

Maybe good is the wrong word, "gives the ok" is a better way of looking at it.