Columbus Bar Kicks Out Patron For Wearing Cross Necklace

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Scripture Bird, Jun 19, 2014.

  1. Article @ WBNS10-TV By Tanisha Mallett
    Monday June 16, 2014

    o_O o_O o_O o_O

    That's some gang! :ROFLMAO: But what a horrible precedent to get out in the media for those who want to discriminate against Christians in this manner.

    I'd hope the ACLU would hear of this and do something.
    SergioL likes this.
  2. Am I in error in posting this as a newbie? Or is this of no concern to members here who have obviously looked in on the article but have nothing to say.
  3. I'm not sure what you want us to say... persecution is a given to the church, but many Americans are accustomed to it. Some would ask "why would a Christian go to a bar" but here in Europe you bring your family - kids and all, because it's a meeting place, not a place one goes to get drunk or see half naked people. The ACLU would never get involved... imho :(
    Huntingteckel likes this.
  4. So that Christians have become use to being persecuted that means we're to simply take it when it keeps happening? The religious are a protected class in America.

    I've never heard of a Christian being persecuted in this way in America. And whether they go into a bar or a kid's play place with their children, someone demanding they hide the cross they have around their neck or else leave the establishment is violating their civil rights.

    I would tend to agree the ACLU won't do anything about this. But had this been reversed and an atheist wearing the classing "A" pendant and asked to leave a bar, that would generate the ACLU and the FFRF's interest. Or if a Christian baker refused to create a wedding cake for a gay wedding. That would generate their interest.

    It is a real shame when a civil rights union appears to be selectively interested in defending civil rights. :(
  5. That's not it at all. But Christians are not interested in their civic duty any more than in meditating on the word of God. "Sunday and Wednesday are good enough for me", and so we have these issues. When statistically you cannot tell if a divorced "family" is Christian or secular in marriage, what hope is there? American Christians are too comfortable in their way of life, they don't understand how threatened it is, but then they're unaware of their spiritual state too, having tickling ears. When tax money supports Planned Parenthood and a handful of token Christians gets involved it's a shame to God and the squandering of the precious gift we have. But I thoroughly believe America died as a truly Christian society in the 1960's when they refused to rise up against the prohibition of prayer in school. Within 10 years abortion became legal. When there are under 1 million protesters, there's no hope of change in a country of ~318 million! There are more pseudo Christians than real ones, the evidence to that is clear only to those living in the spirit. The issue isn't the prohibition of one wearing a cross, but that society has degraded so much as to be bold enough to try and prohibit it.
  6. My comment would be......"Why was he in a bar to begin with"?
    Maybe they did him a favor by removing him since he dosen't seem to be able to help himself.
  7. For myself, I have no clue what an honest answer might be. I have been in bars twice -- once, as a teen, for change for the bus and the second time when were traveling, and the pastor-driver said there was nothing wrong with eating in the bar, and the group did. I have, then, no real bar experience.

    But these are my questions -- and I ask only because I don't know the answers nor do I have any argument:
    1. What if a believer goes into a bar specifically in order to talk about the L-rd? Is that acceptable?
    2. What if a believer goes into a bar just to eat?
    3. What is the difference between a restaurant that serves alcohol and a bar that serves food?
    4. What if a believer like me, who is very inexperienced and probably very ignorant, goes into a bar and has no idea what the answer is to #3?
    5. What do we do with those like me who say, "The Bible does not say not to drink wine; it says not to get drunk"?

    • I have no problem being with people while they are using alcohol, as long as I don't have to deal with drunks.
    • I have alcoholism in my family, so even if I could handle the taste of alcohol (I hate the taste of all of it), I should probably, for my own safety, leave it alone. However, I have tasted champagne, beer, wine, rum, vodka, etc. Just could not stand it.
  8. I think there was a backlash when prayer in school was under attack. In truth prayer in school was not outlawed for the religious. Nor can it ever be. What was prohibited is a school official leading the entire school via intercom in one religions prayer.
    Christians can pray in school anytime they want to.

    I think America started to slide away from religious values when abortion on demand became legal. It's like a domino affect. Revoke responsibility for one's actions, unless of course it is determined full term pregnancy will kill the mother, in which case the surgery should be allowed, and all other responsibilities associated with sex and coupling start to dissolve.

    After abortion was legalized we started seeing single parent households appearing more frequently in America. True, that woman did choose to have her baby and that is a good thing. But that she had her baby out of wedlock demonstrated a renunciation of Christian values.
    And truly it can be said that not everyone in America is Christian and therefore is not obligated to live by Christian values. However, the example that arrives in society, a single mother, sets a precedent for others to follow. And follow they did.

    Then instead of marriage our society during the sexual revolution evolved into unmarried couples living together.

    Non-traditional relationship came out of the closet. And in 1970 America witnessed its very first "gay pride parade" in Chicago.

    In the next decade programming, aptly named, on television started to take a downward spiral. We had shows that made comedic fun of gay and transvestite icons.

    Billy Crystal, who hosted the Oscars numerous times to date, got his shot at public attention in the TV series, "Soap". Where he played an openly gay man. The show played from 1977 to 1981.

    Today's famed actor Tom Hanks got his start on TV in a series where he became famous as a cross dresser. "Bosom Buddies". His costar fell into obscurity. That show ran from 1980 to 1982.
    And all those sinful lifestyles were programmed into society on a platform of pardon and acceptance because they were delivered to our eyes and ears as something to laugh at and with.

    There's a book, published in the 1970's, that describes what was and remains a literal gay agenda. "After The Ball". The outline in that book for introducing gay culture and overcoming conservative values in America was drafted by attorneys and others. And everything that has transpired to date regarding "Trans-rights" and "gay rights" is a product of its employment.

    There was a dictator back in the mid 20th century who's name I can't recall. He said, when America falls she shall fall from within.

    How does the crumble happen? How do people see the wall start to crack, the mortar become unstable, the bricks chip and fall away, and do nothing?

    This man in this Columbus bar was kicked out for wearing a cross in 2014! It would have never occurred to a bar employee to do such a thing in 1990. Nor in 2000. But they did do it in 2014.

    Because they think they can.

    How does that wall of Christian rights that are the first guarantee in America's Constitution, a living document, start to crumble? How does the crumble grow to mortar chipping away and falling to the ground? How do bricks crack and dislodge in this nation wherein the majority in population are Christ's people?

    We can't get millions of Christians to pick up a bag of Quikrete and patch that wall. Who would pay attention if one of us stood there with a trowel and screamed: "THE WALL IS CRACKED!" ?

    Today, police will advise people that when they're suffering an attack by an assailant rather than scream, "HELP!" , scream, "FIRE!" instead. Because people will come to watch something burn before they'll come to save someone from someone else.

    Rather than scream, "THE WALL IS CRACKED!" , and expect the whole Christian community to respond, our duty, and indeed our mistake long years ago when the school prayer issue came to our attention, was that we did not act individually. And set an example thereby to the collective.

    The wall is cracked, bricks are missing, the foundation is sagging and it's only getting worse. I've got a shovel and a fully gassed pickup truck full of fill dirt.

    What do you have to bring to the wall?

  9. Is the issue a Christian being in a bar?
    Huntingteckel likes this.
  10. I know that what I am about to write is going to be really irritating and will likely upset many, so I ask for patience and grace. :)

    I think that G-d used the evil intents of those who demanded that prayer and Bible-reading be officially removed from public schools for His good. This is what I intend: He knew that our country was going to be inundated by many who do not believe in our G-d of the Bible and that with those swelling numbers, they would become more verbal, more demanding.

    We are at a point at which the qaran is more acceptable in public schools than is the Bible, and it's been this way for years.

    What if, because we are a nation of many peoples, your child's teacher had the right to stand before the class and lead it in a prayer to some other god? (And this is the way it would have to be because we are many peoples!) What if they had the right to read from any religious book they chose, and your children would be the captive audience? It is bad enough now that teachers can teach your children things that are completely unacceptable in a believers' home, and when the children come home, we MUST debrief them!!

    I think that if prayer was still acceptable in schools, it would be worse! And as they say, there is no way to keep prayer out of schools, as long as schools keep giving tests.
  11. To me, I'm thinking you see this problem like this:


    When the issue is really this:


    You're focusing on the cut on a corpse if you think America was outraged by Billy Crystal coming out playing a gay man.
  12. I agree because the issue isn't really prayer in school or not, but Jesus isn't in the lives of people to make an influence in the family which would make an influence in their town, which would make an influence in their state, their country and throughout the world. All these issues we face are mean symptoms of the disease. I don't want the Ten Commandments in the schools, I want John 3:16 plastered everywhere as a testament of our faith in Jesus, not to force it down someone's throat. Because Jesus isn't the center of our personal lives, we are suffering as a nation. And at the same time, there are enough in the country to keep God from removing His protection altogether. But that day is not far away.
  13. I think you misunderstood my analogy. Or perhaps I delivered it wrongly.

    I see today's wall as that second picture in your post. But it became that way due to Christians ignoring the wall when it looked as that first picture looks.

    And I have no idea what you mean about Billy Crystal.

    My post, that included reference to Soap and the Billy Crystal character (Jodie Dallas), was but one icon related to the fracturing of the wall.

    Today, the United States post office sells a stamp featuring the gay "activist" and ephebophile, Harvey Milk. Meanwhile, high school graduates are threatened against invoking God in their graduation speeches.

  14. My contribution to repairing the wall is teaching the word of God to those who wish to listen, to break the traditional dogma infecting the church (which is why we have 41,000 denominations), to rightly divide the word of God so we can move in the Spirit instead of admiring Him from a distance, to show real Christians that the word of God is a photo album of the spiritual realm of which we should live in rather than gaze at it.
  15. Interestingly, a police officer is immediately in the scene.

    "There have been" implies, seems it is a temporary precautionary measures to avoid anything more trouble happening, more so after an incident...

    " he went towards the back of the patio area and then says a manager, along with a police officer, came over to him.
    "He said, ‘unfortunately there have been some shootings and troubles at other bars and they view any type of Christian cross as a gang sign’ and that if I didn't tuck it in I had to leave,”
  16. I'm sure if a patron had the money to afford a high end attorney and investigators they could get to the bottom of this.
    Namely the absurdity of the concern and solution.

    That a cop is conveniently there to address this Christian first off is interesting in itself. But that the solution to having a gang banger in a bar isn't to ask them to leave. It is to ask them to hide their 'gang symbol' in their shirt. And that will then permit that gang symbol wearing individual to remain to patronize the bar.

    If a cross is a gang symbol and gangs are giving an area trouble how is a solution to that trouble simply to hide the symbol they wear? So they can remain in a bar wherein the patrons and a cop are concerned about gang bangers.

    This sounds like a perfect excuse for religious oppression. "It's a gang symbol." No, it is a religious symbol that is sometimes worn by gang members.

    Which identity then takes precedent? The alleged symbol for gangs? Or the 2000+ year old religious icon?
    Are the religious to be forbidden ritual jewelery because gangs wear the same thing? What does hiding a 'gang symbol' do to forestall gangs from acting out?

    What was this to accomplish? Hiding a gang symbol while the gang member is allowed to remain doesn't make any sense.
    Not that this man was a gang banger. But the implication in this case points to that as policy for anyone wearing this 'gang symbol'.

  17. #18 aha, Jun 21, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2014
    Precautionary measures are temporary: it may be absurd in normal situation... but after an incident: anything that will help to avoid further incident is a good measure.

    More so for an unwitting customer who seems to have no knowledge of what happened recently...
  18. That is insane and I think the patron should sue his former employer, since the actions of the latter are a clear violation of the patron's religious freedom. We should take those guys to trial each time something like this happens. I remember that a few years ago British Airways fired a flight attendant because she refused to stop wearing her cross. The airline was found not guilty by the British courts, but was condemned by the European courts. That set a good precedent, as British Airways was forced to pay a compensation to the woman. We should all fight for the liberties that we have inherited from our forefathers.
  19. A patron is a customer, not an employee….

    I think it is more on protecting customers….a precaution: rival gangs can be out for revenge, and we cannot predict their actions….

    Temporary policy, not a long-standing policy…although I agree that the cross looks unsuspicious compare to cross in bling-blings.... but gangs, we cannot predict their actions...

    Unless, the man was obviously a cleric in cassock, wearing a cross, and they asked the cross necklace to tucked it in… that will be different story…

    …. bars have french fries and burgers as well : )

Share This Page