Faith

New Jersey McDonald’s Allegedly Bans Homeless Bible Study from Meeting Inside Restaurant

Camden McDonalds Allegedly Bans Bible Study

Dawn Martinez (Photo: Frank Brown via The Christian Post)

A New Jersey woman is looking for a new place to conduct her Bible study for the homeless and drug addicts after she says the McDonald’s where she has held the meeting for the past two years told her she can no longer use it.

“She was really nice about it,” 33-year-old Dawn Martinez told the Christian Post about the manager at the Camden, NJ, restaurant who approached her last week, “but she says, ‘I know that you have been giving Bible studies for a long time but we’ve had a complaint.‘ She didn’t tell me what happened, but she said there was a complaint and that we cannot have our Bible studies there anymore.”

When Martinez asked for more of an explanation, she was told that the group was offending people of other faiths.

“She said, ‘Well you are a Christian and there’s other people of other faiths and so people are getting offended.’ She said, ‘I’m really sorry, but that’s just the way it is.’ I had to cancel the Bible study.”

As for those who were offended, Martinez has a theory: She believes that there were Muslims present at the most recent meeting and overheard a lesson she was giving on the origins of the faith.

“It was a very powerful night. We had one woman join our prayer circle at the table and she was weeping and crying, but that was nothing unusual for our meetings,” Martinez told the Post. “I gave the Bible study. We talked about Isaac and Ishmael. I began to give the history on the descendants of Ishmael and the differences between the Christian and the Muslim faiths because the Muslim faith believes the descendants of Ishmael are the chosen people.”

“It was real brief and nothing unusual happened,” she added. “We had the Bible study. We prayed and we left.”

But the next time the group showed up to meet,the manger pulled Martinez aside and delivered the news.

“I believe that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me right now,” Martinez said of her theory. “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.”

Martinez is planning on showing up to McDonald‘s on Monday to get more of an explanation from McDonald’s, and the Christian Post refrained from contacting the restaurant as Martinez looks to resolve the matter privately. And through this all, her resolve has not faded.

“I‘m not really sure what’s going to happen when they [the Bible study members] stop seeing me there and how to get the word out because they are not like us. They do not have phones. They just know to go to McDonald’s because Dawn is going to be there,” she explain. “I do know that I want to step up my evangelism, but I do not want to abandon them either. I’m going to be praying about it. I am going to show up on Monday and Wednesday even if I have to meet outside McDonald’s and we have to take it to the park or something, but I am not going to let them down.”

Read the full story at the Christian Post.

Comments (189)

1 2 3
  • RamonPreston
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 10:03am

    Has anyone tried Bible studies via teleconferencing with web cams? That would be different.

    Report Post » RamonPreston  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:26am

      These are HOMELESS PEOPLE!!!!! They have NOTHING,THEY LIVE ON THE STREET! What would motivate you to make such an idiotic questions. Some one said there are no stupid questions, that’s a bald face lie. The person who first spoke that bit of lunacy never met you.

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:43am

      HAYES
      Sooo quick to fly off the handle and attack and insult. You must be a ‘believer’, right? (Quick to judge, slow to understand.)

      You see, RAM did not ask if the “homeless” people had tried meeting by teleconference instead of at the local Mickey Dees.

      Report Post »  
    • rickc34
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:27pm

      McDonalds has given to planned parenthood for years, I would not darken their door. It is getting harder to have Bible studies in person when you do not have a building. Persecution of the church just shows the signs of the times, but this is only the start of things to come. How about any business owners in her area that can let her use some office space during off hours. We need to stick together as believers .

      Report Post »  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:25pm

      hayes
      Ques. for you-
      should a group of people sitting at McDonald’s, eating fries, while they hold their ‘obama worship’ meeting, be tossed out for the same reasons??

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:27pm

      sorry,
      that was for conservchuckle

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:51pm

      JOHN VINCENT
      Another-rush-to-judgement. Another wild assumption. Do we have another ‘believer’ on the line?
      I think maybe we do.

      Is that a serious question Johnny?

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:13pm

      @ JOHNNY…while I am a very strong and sincere believer, I do believe that the owner has the right to ask anyone to leave that they wish both legally, ethically, and biblically speaking. I sure would not allow someone holding satanic meetings into my place of business, as is/would be my right. I believe the appropriate Christian response would be to submit to the authority of the property owner respectfully. What a blessing she was able to use it for 2 years! We must maintain the liberty of individuals while preserving freedom of religion. In this case the property owner is not limiting or hendering her practice of religion they are just limiting the fact that she can do it on their private property. This is OK and believe me, as Christians we want to affirm this strongly. Our message is not one of compulsion, some of the greatest church growth has occurred under heavy persecution. Rather our message is one of repaying evil with good, sacrifice, suffering, forgiveness, love, justice, self-denial, faith, and accepting Christ as Lord/Savior.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:32pm

      chuckles& hippo
      appears you neglect the convenient fact that this was no official meeting-they were meeting in a public place that serves food-are you going to police ALL restaurants, starbucks (ladies meetings)
      donut shack (mens meetings) chuck cheese (kids meetings) ?? The topic they were discussing is irrelevant. They could be talking about Satan, who cares?? Go to ANY mcdonalds, and you will see the same groups, men, women, same time, sitting at the same tables, drinking coffee, etc, will you ask them to leave because you do not approve of their chatter?? This is the rub.
      chuckles\you are rather condescending and resort to mind numbing accusations when met with logic above your pay grade.

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:15pm

      JOHN
      Not 100% sure, but I think I must be the “chuckles” in your post. Yes?
      It’s kinda surprising to me that you used the word “logic”, since I haven’t seen any from you yet. (Glad to know you’ve at least heard of the concept though.) For example:
      “… are you going to police ALL restaurants, starbucks (ladies meetings) donut shack (mens meetings) chuck cheese (kids meetings) ??”
      + What are you talking about? Who said anything about ‘policing’ businesses? I sure didn’t. And all that SLEAZY said was that a business has the right to limit certain behaviour on their property and that, in SLEAZY’s opinion as a Christian, the Bible-study lady should simply respect the wishes of the business. Yet here you are frothing at the mouth about ‘policing’ kids parties at Chuck E Cheese. Is there spozed to be some logic in that?
      This is about a business’s right to exercise reasonable control over behaviour on their own premises, to manage their business in a way that they believe is in their best interest. You or I might not like every decision a business makes in this regard, but do you seriously question the legitimacy or lawfulness of this establishment’s actions in this instance? Again, I might not agree with their decision but I believe they were perfectly within their rights.

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:16pm

      JOHN

      BTW, I’m a little disappointed that you described my previous comments as “rather condescending”, cuz I was actually trying to come off as a whole helluva lot condescending. Contemptuous even.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:26pm

      @ JOHNNY…seems you misunderstand the meaning of public. This is private property owned by a private corporation/owner. There is nothing public about it. You stated……”The topic they were discussing is irrelevant.” You are actually arguing my point here and arguing against your own. The topic of conversation is irrelevant (would you have been as upset had Muslims been kicked out if someone complained? Be honest with yourself). They may be asked to leave for many reasons when on someone’s private property, including a place of business, if they perceive a disruption to customers/business, as long as they apply that standard uniformaly, which means Muslims should not be allowed to have a “study” there as well. Now if you don’t like that businesses decision then vote with your dollars. Secondly, for the sake of argument let’s say that the “right” to stay there does exist. Wouldn’t the more prudent and biblical thing to do, be to respect the managers wishes? Paul had rights as a Roman citizen, but did not use his rights, instead choosing to be mistreated so that the gospel might advance. In this case even if you were to win your argument, I think in the end you still lose if your goal is to make the gospel attractive to the lost world as we are commanded to do in Titus 2. The homeless probably weren‘t the only ones who needed to hear about or see Christ in that girl so did the McDonald’s workers…..food for thought my friend, good day.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:33pm

      canuck (chuckles, sorry)
      No frothing here my friend, just running ideas back and forth.
      You say u dont see the connection, (kids parties) ie behaviour, but its to the point precisely. Differing speech IS behaviour, the same way a screaming kid at a public place. Once you go down the road of nixing the Mcdonald group, where does it stop. But I back up.
      -what was the nature of the complaint?
      -who complained?
      -was this complaint formal?
      -if so, id like to see it
      -were the patrons disruptive?-
      -was there profanity?
      -was the offending party a regular guest, or was this a casual visit?
      -was there a history of complaints by patrons?
      -were there purchases made during these meetings?
      Now, you may say, ‘doesnt matter, the restaurant has the right to exclude or include.’ Really?
      Your case may be stronger if you say the restaurant REFUSED payment for food, then told the patrons to leave-but this was not the case. Once money was accepted, the patrons in essence ‘rented tables and space.’ Again, their conversation is irrelevant.- I dont care if they prayed to Obama, a tree, a car, a burger, doesnt matter. They were at this point a paying customer, and entitled to all the benefits of any other patron. It just so happened they were a christian group. My opinion would be the same if they were atheists-
      \

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • rikyby
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:35pm

      Just to tick people off they should do it outside the mcdonalds.

      Report Post »  
    • Wildape
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:55pm

      The article said that there were some highly offended Muslims that voiced the complaint that led to the end of the Bible discussion. Whereas I agree with Sleazyhippo that businesses should have a right to toss out any one for disrupting their business I think McDonalds is over eager to appease Muslims and I would consider the source. These are the same poeople that approve of beheadings and suicide bombings yet are outraged and make good on death threats for people that draw cartoons of Muhammad or criticize their faith. As far as I‘m concerned McDonalds doesn’t respecty patronage. They are free to do this and I’m free to not go there. Let them serve Dearborn Michigan. I won’t miss the Big Mac.

      Report Post »  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:59pm

      JOHN
      “Once money was accepted, the patrons in essence ‘rented tables and space.’”
      + So they are free to do do whatever they want in this “rented space” … sing songs, preach a sermon, sell greeting cards, roll out a sleeping bag and catch some Zzzz’s. Really JOHN, you gotta use yer noggin.

      “They were at this point a paying customer, and entitled to all the benefits of any other patron.”
      + Exactly! And any other patron could also be instructed to leave, or curb their behaviour IF the business operator feels their conduct is inappropriate or unwelcome. You get that, right? I mean, when you and your homies have ‘rented space’ in my restaurant and you set up your boom-boxes playing all that cop-killing, women-hating rap music, and you all are talkin smack and dropping F-bombs in ear-shot of my desirable clientele … You don‘t think it’s within my right to tell you to knock it the hell off or get out? Please tell me you ain’t that dim brother.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 4:08pm

      @ WILDAPE….Thank you for distinguishing that my argument had nothing to do with defending the actions of the people who complained (if they were Muslims, I believe this was an assumption and not confirmed if I read the article right). That is an entirely different matter. Thanks ahead…

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 4:19pm

      cmon canuck-
      you are taking way too much liberty with what happened-
      from my previous posts u should have got the drift that they were not being disruptive-
      you cant possibly compare mcdonalds with an upscale restaurant-
      how many mops do you see flying around at a 100. dollar a plate establishment?? none.
      use your noggin bro.
      i addressed the profanity, and your other issues if u read between the lines-
      common sense goes a long way here. I can understand your fear that your place of dining may be tarnished if it turned into a meeting place for what you would call undesireables-
      I guess the benefit of a quality place would be to have ‘no tables available.’ problem solved.
      mcdonalds, but their very nature, do not have this problem, I do not want a boom box in my ears either, and I do not like mcdonalds service or food-but i stand with they who are civil,. decent toward all, courteous of the place, clean up the trash, and are not disruptive in the least- may i remind you of the thousands of people who are ‘regulars,’ and who have their own meetings. You cant police them, nor throw them out- and I would think that a quality attorney would agree.

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:03pm

      SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING & CANUK

      I agree with you.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:26pm

      JOHN
      Where to begin?

      “they were not being disruptive”
      + So you are the arbiter of what is disruptive, or offensive, or unwelcome, or inappropriate? Other human beings are entitled only to share your view of things?
      Obviously(!) whoever complained found it offensive. And the management chose to agree with the customer who complained. THAT is the right of the business.

      “you cant possibly compare mcdonalds with an upscale restaurant”
      + For the purposes of discussing the point in question, of course I can. For the purposes of this discussion, we might just as well be talking about a flower shop, or a laundromat, or a bank, or a roller rink, or a library, or a …

      “You cant police them, nor throw them out- and I would think that a quality attorney would agree.”
      + Wow. Just … wow.

      Report Post »  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:49pm

      conservativeheadinthe sand
      Your myopic comments prove you are trying to protect a false point of view:
      you question whether it is my right to judge what is disruptive?? WOw, wow!
      excuse me?? Wow
      the narrative proves my point 100%. THEY MET IN MCDONALDS FOR 2 YEARS. Get that? Wow. People do not go to flower shops or libraries for coffee and burgers. Get real. Your house of cards argument just collapsed. Argue with facts.
      And the salient fact that you are ignoring-the meeting was NEVER an issue, as they PROVED to be good customers. 2 entire years, without a complaint. And the complaint?? ‘somebody was offended.’Now YOU are offended. Too bad. The homeless cannot be dismissed from mcdonalds, the aclu will settle that in 45 seconds. And they were no threat to anybody. Dont worry, your restaurant is safe, just dont let them in. I would love to see another mcdonalds advertise that the homeless are welcome to come in, enjoy a coffee, and read their bibles. Then you will have to find another battle.

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:01pm

      @ JOHN…..you seem to be very passionate about defending your point of view, no problem there. However, we must, in our zeal, be careful not to fall into the trap of being quick to speak and slow to listen (we all have been guilty of this at times). Think with me logical the argument you have made so far:
      1) “you neglect the convenient fact that this was no official meeting-they were meeting in a public place”…….The right of the owner is not dependent upon the “officialness” of the meeting and the property is privately owned not publicly owned. It is open to the public and hence is governed by certain civil statutes that vary some from state to state, but the rights of the property owner are secured. They simply may not discriminate with their policies meaning that if no Bible study, then no Qu’ran study either.

      2) Go to ANY mcdonalds, and you will see the same groups, men, women, same time, sitting at the same tables, drinking coffee, etc, will you ask them to leave because you do not approve of their chatter?? ……This is not a relevant point or logical one because we are not discussing the prevalence of meetings or what I may or may not do. We are discussing what the rights of a property owner are concerning their customers. Different McDonalds are owned by different owners so some may have different policies than others. No problem there.

      CONTINUED

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:06pm

      JOHN
      I can see that yours is a mind that cannot be reached. C’est la vie!

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:10pm

      @ JOHN

      3) Your case may be stronger if you say the restaurant REFUSED payment for food, then told the patrons to leave-but this was not the case……First of all you are assuming the purchased something. I don’t recall if they did or not. Secondly, you are assuming they were kicked out in the middle of the study. My understanding was they were told they could no longer hold them anymore. Thirdly, if they consumed what they ate it really doesn’t matter then. And finally, it makes no difference if somehting was purchased, give them their money back (unless they ate or drank everything) and tell them not to come back if that is what you choose.

      4) the patrons in essence ‘rented tables and space.’ …..this is not a logical or legal argument of any sort.

      5) u should have got the drift that they were not being disruptive-…..apparently in the eyes of the manager/owner of the business they were. It really is not your call to make. This is a subjective statment void of substance in my opinion.

      6) “may i remind you of the thousands of people who are ‘regulars,’ and who have their own meetings. You cant police them”…..I don’t nor do others want to police them. That is very easily disreguarded as a valid concern by simply aloowing business owners to establish their own policies. The law is quite clear on this, they simply have to have the same policies across the board, in other words they cannot discriminate aginst just the Bible study. CONTINUE

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • acidovorax
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:14pm

      JOHN VINCENT, you fail to understand the concept of individual rights. The owner/manager has the right to control the use of his/her establishment as they see fit. Whether the choices they make are well thought out or not is irrelevant, as ownership entails the rightful power of disposition, not perfect decision making. The fact that this woman was able to get 2 years at McDonalds, simply shows that during such time the owner/manager felt such meetings were allowable. Of course some will take this article as a concerted attack on Christians by McDonalds, but it is anything but.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:31pm

      @ JOHN….

      7) “And the salient fact that you are ignoring-the meeting was NEVER an issue, as they PROVED to be good customers. 2 entire years, without a complaint.”…This is an irrelevant point and has nothing to do with the rights possessed by a property/business owner.

      I am not trying to be argumentative, but these seem to be your main points in your argument that the business owner has acted in an uncivil way within the walls of its establishment and violated “rights” of some of its customers. Whether you agree or disagree with Bible studies (I am a sincere Christian), does not the greater law of respect and honor to the one who owns the establishment take precedence over a personal “right’? After all this was in fact a Bible study? What better way to walk out your faith before these homeless people and the workers of McDonalds than to simply submit to what the manager has requested in a humble and respectful wa? Again, my premise is that even if you win (which you certainly did not convince me), you essentially lose if your goal is again to make the gospel attractive. Not to mention that everyone has “rights” these days. Preferences and principles have all of a sudden become “rights”. We misuse this term all the time and attribute a meaning to it that is not accurate. Tell me JOHN specifically what “right” was violated in this case? Again, not to be arrogant or agrumentative just wanting consistent thinking, Thank you ahead of time and for your

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • acidovorax
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:33pm

      JOHN VINCENT wrote: “Your case may be stronger if you say the restaurant REFUSED payment for food, then told the patrons to leave-but this was not the case. Once money was accepted, the patrons in essence ‘rented tables and space.’ Again, their conversation is irrelevant.- I dont care if they prayed to Obama, a tree, a car, a burger, doesnt matter. They were at this point a paying customer, and entitled to all the benefits of any other patron. It just so happened they were a christian group. My opinion would be the same if they were atheists-”

      This is incorrect. Because they purchased food does NOT in anyway argue that this purchase also “rented” the use of their facilities for their own purposes. They spent no money in excess of the cost of the food, they agreed upon no terms and they entered into no literal contract. McDonalds provides an eating environment because they believe it is in their best business interest and the use of said environment is controlled by McDonalds and McDonalds alone.

      Report Post »  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:38pm

      canuck, and others
      once again, you neglected to mention HOW the meeting in mcdonalds was nixed-
      it was not instigated by an owner who cared for ‘property rights.’
      it began with a complaint by somebody who was offended.
      so the property owner makes a decision on WHO to favour, that is, which patron would receive his judgement.
      Strange, how ‘property rights were ’never an issue,’ thus invalidating your claim that they were first and foremost the main event to be considered.
      I agree wholeheartedly that owners have rights, but so do patrons, i,e. the absurd verdict that went to the woman who filed claim that mcdonalds coffee was too hot.
      Where was the property owners rights?? Apparantly, the court agreed with me that PATRONS have rights too. As stupid as that was, that woman won the case: coffee too hot. NOw once more, whose head is in the sand?? It appears we are arguing from both sides of the fence with equal validity-in the end, the patrons however will win, because it is the company who caters TO THE PUBLIC- this is why they have wi-fi- :to cater to the public. case closed
      integra mens augustissima possessio

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 7:55pm

      @ JOHN….you neglected to mention HOW the meeting in mcdonalds was nixed-….I hate to seem contentious but this is really irrelevant. You are doing a lot of logical dodging and weaving to justify your position my friend.

      “it was not instigated by an owner who cared for ‘property rights.’
      it began with a complaint by somebody who was offended.”…….This again is really immaterial to the point at hand of our discussion. It has no bearing on the issue.

      “Strange, how ‘property rights were ’never an issue,’ thus invalidating your claim that they were first and foremost the main event to be considered.”…again this invaldates nothing because it doesn’t address the point being debated. Please stay on point and stop making the logical fallacy of red herring, it is not helping your point, thank you.

      the absurd verdict that went to the woman who filed claim that mcdonalds coffee was too hot…..This suit was filed on the basis of negligence not property rights, big difference friend.

      It appears we are arguing from both sides of the fence with equal validity-in the end,……I simply disagree that there is any validity to your argument my friend to many logical fallacies and irrelevant points. Thank you ahead and we will jsut have to agree to disagree on this good day….

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
    • acidovorax
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 10:24pm

      JOHN VINCENT wrot: “it was not instigated by an owner who cared for ‘property rights.’ it began with a complaint by somebody who was offended. so the property owner makes a decision on WHO to favour, that is, which patron would receive his judgement.
      Strange, how ‘property rights were ’never an issue,’ thus invalidating your claim that they were first and foremost the main event to be considered”

      Everything you state is predicated on the owner’s property rights. One has to first OWN something to be the rightful agent in regards to controlling it’s use. Once this is established, he/she may dispose of said property with a pretty wide scope. Yes, the owner chose the side of the offended patron. The end. Property rights don’t have to end with their use being consistent with your beliefs. So, nothing is invalidated save your argument that the patron may do as they please and the owner must run through a litany of procedures in order to exercise their control.

      Report Post »  
    • cliffchism
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:45pm

      Hayesstephen, I do hope and pray that you never make a simple mistake. It would be unfortunate were someone to correct you in the manner that you treated another.

      Report Post »  
    • Al J Zira
      Posted on July 17, 2012 at 1:00pm

      @John Vincent: You said: “Once money was accepted, the patrons in essence ‘rented tables and space.”

      This doesn’t give the patron the freedom to act in any way they want nor speak in any manner. Their, “rented use” of the space is for the purpose of enjoying a Happy Meal, not having sex on the table, cursing out other patrons or holding meetings. The fact that the woman was allowed to have bible study meetings was an admirable move on the part of management, but being Christian, I’m partial. Management has the right to refuse service or entrance to anyone, it’s their business not a public meeting place.

      Report Post » Al J Zira  
  • EqualJustice
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 10:01am

    As long as they PURCHASE a product, the restaurant can NOT prohibit them from meeting there. PERIOD. Anyting else is DISCRIMINATION.

    Report Post » EqualJustice  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:20am

      yep; i would only add that if the patrons were INTENTIONALLY being loud to attract attention, that would be an abuse of free speech; i.e; it would be wrong to assume you have frre speech to disrupt a funural. As long as the patrons bought fries, etc, they have every right to speak their mind, the same way foreign speaking patrons excercise their right to speak in a different language that is foreign to me. Thats the context really, if speech is not favorable to my mind, it is simply foreign. Who could logically disagree?

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:59am

      “As long as they PURCHASE a product, the restaurant can NOT prohibit them from meeting there. PERIOD. Anyting else is DISCRIMINATION”

      You could not be more wrong if you tried. PURCHASE or not, I can kick you out of my restaurant just because I don’t like the way you hold your head if I want to. If I don’t want you in my restaurant, YOU’RE LEAVING…. PERIOD!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:08pm

      AND…There isn’t a thing in the world you can do to keep me from ejecting you.

      Report Post »  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:11pm

      old photo-
      good luck with that ‘can kick u out if i dont like how u hold your head.’ If you did have a restaurant, with an attitude like that, you would be serving ghosts.

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • rcw_68
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:44pm

      @john vincent-the point is-“I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime” Most people don’t remember these signs that used to hang in businesses. While people like you will think this is harsh and will chase customers away, it is used to keep unruly people from running the show.

      As for this lady, take your group to Chick-fal-a for your bible study. They are christian friendly.

      Report Post »  
    • john vincent
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:15pm

      rc
      Who was unruly in the Mcdonalds? You needed a better argument here. This was not a group of miscreants- this paying collection of folks had EVERY right to talk about the weather, the food, the president, the left, the right, God, the devil, take your pick. You would be thrown out of court so fast if you thought you had a case to eject ‘whoever, for whatever’ reason. Oh wait, if their conversation included homosexuality, beastiality, Obama worship, then their conversation would have been welcomed. Wake up

      Report Post » john vincent  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:38pm

      EQUAL
      Hmmm, how can I put this? Yer wrong!

      Report Post »  
  • Magyar
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:46am

    I can understand how this rag tag group might impact business….The owner has right to serve ALL customers and grow his business…

    Now because of the Marxist’s anti-small business directives and the stalled economy the owner wants to protect his investment.

    Perhaps now that it’s been brought to light, someone will step forward with a better solution for everyone.

    I know the LORD will provide for his children.

    Report Post »  
    • turkey13
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 10:10am

      What would anyone expect from Camden N.J – isn’t this where the predident had to scold the police for acting stupidely! Looks like a lot of new business for Burger King. I’m calling my broker to buy their stock this morning. I bought condom stock 20 years ago when aids was tops in the news and am still making money on it. Looks like just Muslims and athiest will be at Mickey D’s

      Report Post »  
  • TN
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:44am

    If the McDonald‘s doesn’t approve then that should be fine as the group was not paying for the space and McDonald’s has a business to run. There have to be other locations open who would accept them so shake the dust off your feet and move on.

    Report Post » TN  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:33am

      I might agree with you a little more strongly, if this had just started.This is being directed by a bunch of muslims.Its why I think its chicken Sh**.Yes a business owner does have the right to maintain his her place of business.If that were the case why not give a weeks notice to them.They have been going in there for two years.Better yet put a sign on the wall stating that no religious meeting can be held there.They would if that were the real reason.That is how you maintain your customer base and still make the changes you may feel you need to make.This is muslim boondoggling and side line control and you know it.

      Report Post »  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:34am

      May I make a suggestion? Oh shut up!!!!!! Did you take the time to read the article??? This Lady is ministering to HOMELESS PEOPLE. They most likely do not have cars to meet somewhere else. If they were being orderly, bought product, they have every right to be there. This is an excellent example of Christians discrimination!! I could have been Jesus haters, or muslims who knows. I fear that there will come a day when they will regret their actions. God Bless you and your friends.

      Report Post »  
    • SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:01pm

      I agree with you TN. Whether started by Muslims or not we want to respect the authority of property owners and submit to what they are asking us to do. To me I am astonished she was allowed to carry on for 2 years. What a blessing! We should not be surprised by the persecution of others but should leap for joy that we are considered worthy to suffer persecution on behalf of Christ. Muslims remember are not our enemy. Evil powers and principalities are our enemies.

      Report Post » SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:41am

    …
    I don’t care what anyone is talking about, while they are eating in a restaurant, as long as they are doing it quietly, and not being disruptive.
    A bible study group would be a welcomed change, over the annoying kids running around, screaming, and throwing food.

    Report Post »  
  • jackact
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:38am

    McDonalds has always maintained an open door policy, in most large cities, that allows indigents to nurse empty cups for hours as long as they mind their own business, do not cause a scene or maintain bad personal hygiene.
    Regardless of the fact that McDonalds is a private enterprise and can set all the rules regarding their customer base wouldn’t the bigger picture here be; all BUMS, (not the PC word ‘homeless’) should be denied access to all private businesses (especially food establishments)?
    Period!

    Report Post »  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:27am

      Guess you are stupid enough to think all those that have been homeless are bums.This includes veterans, dv victims, the poor who don‘t qualify for hand outs that they usually don’t want any way .
      We have a quite sucessful business where I live.Its a restaurant been in business ofr decades.The owner was homeless for awhile himself.Guess he was a loser according to you too.Should we get down on our knees and worship you little miss mr perfect.All hail you, you arrogant freak.Your screen name should be recaptioned to reflect the real meaning JackA**.Its truly much more fitting,

      Report Post »  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:36am

      I can’t quite grasp what your point is? How about taking a little more time and really think about what you mean.

      Report Post »  
    • deeberj
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:43pm

      Not all homeless people are bums, and vice versa. Way to go for dissing an entire group of people in one short post.

      Report Post » deeberj  
  • ViewPointtt
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:37am

    Muslim population at 2% conduct themselves as a peaceful minority.Such as in U.S. 0.6%,Australia 1.5%,Italy 1.5%,China 1.8%,Norway 1.8%,Canada 1.9%
    At 5%,excessive pressure,push for Halal foods,relentless threats on supermarkets/restaurants for failure to comply,petition for Sharia and self-rule.Such as in Switzerland 4.3%,Sweden 5%, Philippines5%,Netherlands 5.5%,Trinadad 5.8%,Tobago 5.8%,France 8%
    After 10%,lawlessness as a means of complaint.An offense against Islam results in car burnings, uprisings,terrorist attacks,suicide-bombings,assassinations.Such as in Guyana10%,Kenya 10%, India 13.4%,Russia 15%,Israel 16%
    After 20%,hair-trigger riots,Jihad militia formations,sporadic killings,frequent church/synagogue burnings.Such as in Ethiopia 32.8%
    After 40%, widespread massacres,ongoing militia warfare.Such as in Bosnia 40%,Chad 53.1%, Lebanon 59.7%
    After 60%,unfettered persecution of all others,routine ethnic cleansing,Sharia Law as a weapon,Jizya tax on all non-Muslims.Such as in Malaysia 60.4%,Albania 70%,Sudan 70%,Qatar 77.5%
    After 80%,daily intimidation,violent Jihad,ethnic cleansing,genocide.Such as in Bangladesh 83%, Gaza 86.1%,Indonesia 86.1%,Egypt 90%,Syria 90%,Tajikistan 90%,Jordan 92%,UAE 96%,Iraq 97%,Pakistan 97%,Iran 98%,Morocco 98.7%,Turkey 99.8%
    At 100%, all unMuslim-like behavior results in severe punishment or execution and the most radical Muslims kill less radical Muslims.Such as in Afghanistan 100%,Saudi Arabia 100%,Somalia 100%, Yemen 100%.

    Report Post »  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:52am

      Meanwhile… Obama is always going out of his way to praise Islam. Look on YouTube at the number of speeches he’s given praising them. According to him they’ve been a world wide contributor with accomplishments that have helped the world and the USA. I guess to him… bombing and killing innocent people around the world for not believing in Islam is an accomplishment.

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:44am

      obummer and islam. A muslim President leading a Christian country. Thailand is called a Buddhist Nation, Iran ect, muslim Nation.
      Oh yes its not P.C. to call the United States Of America a Christian Nation, but we ARE CHRISTIAN!!!!!!

      Report Post »  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:32am

    …
    The woman holding bible study, was nothing out of the ordinary. In my community, many groups meet at local eateries to eat while they conduct business or some sort of studies. This has been going on for many years. No one was ever offended, until the Muslims started their takeover of America.

    Report Post »  
    • Dr Vel
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:57am

      I am offended by Muslims period. As long as I live I will never step foot in another McDonald’s. This nation was founded by mostly Christian peoples and America and it’s constitution was based on Christian values and principles. The Christian God is the one mentioned in the constitution not Allah. This is our country you violent beasts and you will not overcome us. If anyone wonders why crime is out of control in cities in New Jersey (and everywhere else), try reading the bible and the principles therein.

      Report Post »  
    • weisja4
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:36am

      First off, there is no evidence that it was a muslim that complained. That is just one persons thought, and she has no basis for that belief.

      Second, this isn’t a christian nation, this is a secular nation. Moreover, most of the founders were not christian, many were deist if not our right atheist.

      Report Post »  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:40am

      I second the motion.I won’t go back into mickey dees either.I’m not going to support a business that caves to the muslim agenda.Admittedly they won’t lose much on me.Didn‘t go in there much and didn’t order much when I did.Usually only on a very busy day and had to run errands to boot.However if everyone, like me, were to stop going in there ,it will affect there business.

      Report Post »  
    • Dr Vel
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:40pm

      weisja4 go right on repeating the lies you believe. Without a zero baseline for IQ tests how would we measure the brilliance of those who research and learn the real truth for themselves.

      Report Post »  
  • Fiscallytead
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:29am

    Two years and one complaint. McDonald just lost my business!

    Report Post »  
    • woodyl1011fl
      Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:46am

      I shall also strop patronizing McDs. Try having a bible study in a an Islamic country; you will come home headless in a casket. I do tire of American management cowardice when Muslims complain about Christians. McD is now no exception too bad. They should replace the golden arches with a white flag !!

      Report Post »  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:27am

    …
    If the Muslims had pulled out their prayer mats, flopped down on them, and started chanting, I don’t think the manager would have had the nerve to say a thing to the Muslims. Even if there were forty people complaining about it, all at once. I think the manager would have asked the complainers to leave, not the Muslims.

    Report Post »  
  • wethepeoplepress
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:22am

    good, I dont want to eat next to a bible study. Go to a church, or are they reserved for illegal aliens only now adays?

    Report Post » wethepeoplepress  
    • OneTermPresident
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:43am

      Then don’t… nobody would or could force you. Stop your whining…. and move along.

      Report Post » OneTermPresident  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:48am

      Wethepeoplepress. Funny you should say this. As Christians we are taught to be careful with whom you eat with. There are some people we are to avoid being around. Hey I glad you stepped forward.

      Report Post »  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:21am

    …
    The story states, “she was told that the group was offending people of other faiths”, not that people were offended by the homeless people or drug addicts she was helping.
    Christians have a choice. They can choose to NOT eat at that McDonald’s, because they are offended by the Muslims who are present.

    Four years ago, I would have broken bread with anyone of any faith. Since Obama has been in office, I have opened my eyes, and reality has slapped me in the face.
    I will not sit in a restaurant with a bunch of towel heads, knowing that their “religion” is one of dominance, perversion, and hate. I will not comply to sharia law.

    That same restaurant manager would NOT have spoken to the Muslims in my behalf, if I had told her that I felt very uncomfortable about Muslims being there. That they being present, brought back bad memories of 9-11.

    Report Post »  
  • Flyingfish
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:13am

    I do recall Jesus was pretty fond of hills. There are hills in parks, and parks in major cities tend to be full of bums, er I mean the homeless.

    So

    1. McDonald’s cheese burger special price day(sadly they don’t that at 25 cents or at any price often anymore) bags of cheese burgers to go.
    2. Hills
    3. Bums (homeless)
    4. Profit! = Praise Jesus and Hallelujah the bible thumpers are spreading the world someplace that does not annoy the crap out of the rest of us.

    There is another place where that sort of stuff is actively encouraged and really crazy as they tend to have services for bums. They are called “Churches”. Do a Google map search, there are hundreds of them in major cities.

    Report Post » Flyingfish  
    • sawbuck
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:33am

      FLYINGFISH
      But children running around like their at the zoo is perfectly acceptable..
      That doesn’t annoy anyone does it…

      I think God invented the drive-thru… just for you morons

      Report Post » sawbuck  
    • Jezcruzen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:25am

      The Church is not a building you a$$wipe. The Church are the believers. Should you walk into a restaurant (or anyplace else) and people are praying or having Bible study and you don’t like it, you can just take your whinny a$$ someplace else!

      Report Post »  
    • The_Bell
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:30pm

      Your life must really suck to come on the Blaze to troll with your hatred.

      Not surprised as your condition has afflicted many in our nation… it’s called mental illness.

      We have psychiatrists that can help counsel you and prescribe medication for such anger and emotional damage. Give it a shot unless you wish to remain as angry and transparently bigoted as you are now.

      Peace

      Report Post »  
  • sooner12
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:11am

    I cannot believe some of you people! The bible sessions had been going on for TWO years and apparently there had been no complaints about the type of clientele of the bible group. If you people wish not to be blemished by such people go somewhere else to eat. Shame on you.

    Report Post »  
  • bikerdogred1
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:09am

    One complaint and you do away with a good deed.I have one complaint your hamburgs suck,so maybe we should close the place down,sounds about right to me.

    Report Post »  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:08am

    She believes that Muslims overheard the Bible/Prayer group and were offended..

    Now I Think She should have her Bible studies and prayer meetings,,
    Out in the middle of the road.. and SHUT DOWN the whole street …!

    That’s seems to be completely acceptable to Muslims.

    Report Post » sawbuck  
  • willielynch
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:04am

    If this is the case, then let us ban muslims praying in our streets, The filthy buggers shouldnt be here anyways, and let me remind you liberals when in court, we place our hands on the Bible, not the Koran. In God we trust.

    Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:13am

      McDonald’s is a private business and they have every right to ban Bible studies in their resturants. However if those Christain buy a drink each they have every right to sit together and talk about the bible. And if the manager says they can‘t they the christian won’t homeless after the lawsuit.

      Report Post »  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 10:04am

      @ willielynch “let me remind you liberals when in court, we place our hands on the Bible, not the Koran.”
      NO,WE DON’T!!! Most courts don’t use the bible or swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me god anymore. The bible and god have pretty much been evicted from the court room by the sane among us. Why do you lie about such things anyway?

      Report Post »  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 10:10am

      @johnjamison…Grow up. If I want you out of my restaurant, drink or not, you’re leaving, and your lawsuit will be thrown out of court. You FAIL!!!

      Report Post »  
    • objectivetruth
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:45am

      @OLD PHOTO
      If this were simply about control of ones restaurant I’d agree with you.Ultimately its the owner who decides.You have to admit though that waiting for two years and then handling it as though its a complaint driven decision isn’t the smartest thing the owners could do.

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:02pm

      oldphotos,
      Using your logic we would still have whites only resturants,and businesses. If I walk in a resturant and by a soda I’M A CUSTOMER(no matter if I’m christian ,buddist,black or white)….aND IF SEVERAL OF MY FRIENDS DO THE SAME THEY’RE COSTUMERS AS WELL. And if we decide to sit a together and talk we’re costumers that are having a conversation. If manage says I can’t have a soda and a conversation about god at their resturant. Management is practicing discrimination.
      I can guarantee the Christian would win the lawsuit hands down.

      Report Post »  
    • Oldphoto678
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:30pm

      johnjamison

      It would be illeagal to kick you out because you were black or a christian, but I wouldn’t kick you out for that. So your lawsuit is a……. FAIL.

      Report Post »  
    • The_Bell
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:36pm

      @Old(ignorant)photo:

      Just continuing to say fail doesn’t make it so.

      You would be hauled into court and successfully sued. You would try and be clever, but after reading your entries you would be found guilty and fined appropriately.

      You make some very bold claims that are quite outrageous and then backtrack in typical hot head fashion. Bravo! You are an imbecile : )

      Peace

      Report Post »  
  • ChildofJesus
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:59am

    there’s always other places she can try, Jesus told us (not just the disciples) if you’re chased out of one place go to another. We can still be witnesses for him in any situation. Time’s are hard, it‘s gonna get harder but keep doing good I’ll be praying for her and her group.

    Report Post »  
    • hayesstephen
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:53am

      Not quite what He said. He was talking about villages and town.

      Report Post »  
  • no1hd
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:58am

    What are all these companies and individuals going to do when the muslims take over..Don’t come running back to the people you turned your back on – you have chosen your fate..

    Report Post »  
  • Constructionist
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:54am

    This is not a religious issue. I’m surprised that McDonalds allowed groups of homeless to gather in their place of business for two years. I would not be offended by a group of homeless Hindus having a prayer meeting; however, I don’t want to trip over them in the middle of a restaurant.

    Report Post » Constructionist  
    • danenut
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:14am

      Could not agree more. . .this is NOT about religion. What about the local churches? The YMCA? Local Parks? I am kind of surprised they let her do it for 2 years. I don’t know about you but I would leave if there was any big group meeting that had nothing to do with just eating. I go to restaurants TO EAT with my children. When I walk in to one and there are 3 buss’s full of teens in there I LEAVE.

      I will also ad that I know my church would support them . . . but we are in Texas.

      Report Post »  
  • barber2
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:46am

    Anyone else notice how many people conduct their business in coffee shops ? I miss the days when people had offices to work in and other people had coffee shops to conduct some peace and quiet. Reminds me : Nobama 2012.

    Report Post »  
  • YourVoiceMatters
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:46am

    religious stinkin thinkin….
    the difference between the two is evident…
    one has rules and regs
    the other has relationship
    guess which one gets attacked?

    Report Post »  
  • RightPolitically
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:46am

    Like it or not, the restaurant is within it’s right to disallow any group or activity within their space. McDonalds is a restaurant after all, not a church. The homeless factor likely played a role in their decision though.

    Report Post » RightPolitically  
    • only easy day was yesterday
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:04am

      homeless factor had nothing to do with it, loud minority trying to silence anyone who disagree with them. We as a nation has to stop this, we can not continue to cave to every minority group who are offended.

      Report Post »  
    • Infidelephant
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:49am

      Only Easy:

      Now how do you know that the “homeless factor” had nothing to do with it? How do you know that is was just the “loud minority trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them?” You DON’T know that. Quit making stuff up just because *YOU* disagree with certain people.

      Report Post » Infidelephant  
    • deeberj
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 12:38pm

      I agree that a private business is allowed to ban certain people from being there. That is what they did here. I doubt it is because of the homeless. Have you ever been to Camden? They are everywhere, I can think of a McD’s in center city that has homeless folks there all the time. And a drug dealer spends the mornings there doing her thing. I guess she’s just quiet about it so no one complains.

      Report Post » deeberj  
  • travlman77
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:33am

    I have never been able to understand how practicing one’s religious beliefs “offends” anyone!
    I could understand if it was detrimental or derogatory to another religion, but this is asinine!

    Report Post » travlman77  
    • justangry
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:49am

      I don‘t think it’s an issue of faith, rather than the homeless and drug adicts driving away business.

      Report Post » justangry  
    • ConservativeCanucklehead
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:19pm

      I agree with you TRAVLMAN, religious beliefs ARE assinine.

      Report Post »  
  • kaydeebeau
    Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:33am

    Well, gee virtually everything islamist offends me, does that mean I can have them banned from any public place where I may be? I didn’t think so

    Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • God_Is_Not
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:02am

      You’re offended that people are born in different parts of the world and indoctrinated into a different faith than your own? Seems like a strange thing to be offended by.

      Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:18am

      That is the point genius…..

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • Infidelephant
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 9:54am

      just….. wow

      Report Post » Infidelephant  
    • TheEDGE
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 11:48am

      If I saw a table full of Muslims I would just turn around and go to subway. I’m not offended that they practice another religion than me. They just creep me out.

      Report Post » TheEDGE  
    • God_Is_Not
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:01pm

      It’s just not very often you find someone so admittedly hateful.

      Report Post »  
    • kat747
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 1:56pm

      Now, you know you have the “right” to feel in any way that you like about something. If you feel offended by someone’s action, you call the ACLU and they will take away the other person’s rights for you. Don’t let liberals or democrats tell you how you should “feel” about anything. How you feel is your “right” in this country.
      As for that “hateful” remark, there is nothing more hateful and disgusting than a group of people that
      actually have printed in their so-called holy book that it is a right to kill “infidels”. And that the group is “allowed to kill” infidels because they don’t believe or practice the Islamic religion. If someone is bummed out or freaked out by this “cult” of people who advocate “murder”, they have the “right” not to like it.
      Now you have the definition of the word “hateful”. Go change “them”.

      Report Post »  
    • TheEDGE
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:00pm

      God- really? You should visit a black neighborhood sometime. You don’t have to look that hard. You are naive.

      Report Post » TheEDGE  
    • God_Is_Not
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 2:58pm

      Edge – what does that even mean? That black people are hateful? What an incredibly stupid response.

      KayD – I get it. You don’t like Islam and you reserve the right to hate all Muslims. Way to follow the teachings of Jesus.

      Report Post »  
    • TheEDGE
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 3:57pm

      God- You said it’s just not that often you find someone so admittedly hateful. I’m simply suggesting you get out a little more. Take off your blinders, lady. Do you ever leave your little white corner of the world. I can’t go into the city without hearing some derogatory remark about whites or Asians. It is the way of the world. Wake up.

      Report Post » TheEDGE  
    • TheEDGE
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:18pm

      God- now your just contradicting what you said in your earlier post. And the name calling? Really? It just brings a smile to my face when you libs get cornered into the name calling ;)

      Report Post » TheEDGE  
    • TheEDGE
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:29pm

      Stupid, irrelevant, anecdotal. Ya, ya I know.

      Report Post » TheEDGE  
    • God_Is_Not
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 5:52pm

      Ha, I never called you a name. I did add my opinion about your response. Anecdotal is not a derogatory term either, sorry.

      The hypocrisy is kinda sad. The only name calling above is from you.

      Report Post »  
    • TheEDGE
      Posted on July 16, 2012 at 6:13pm

      Example of my name calling? When did I say anything about anecdotal being a derogatory term? You said all of the rude, hateful behavior in the city should be ignored right after you said people who are admittedly hateful are rare. You’re all over the place and now they are deleting some of your posts.

      Report Post » TheEDGE  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love