Where can I see a copy of this 'atheist bus ad'?

Problem is, I entered my name and address in the complaint form...they'll know who did it.

When I can get a delux Jr. burger and watermellon creamslush for $2???

Not possible. I'll make a big stink before that happens.

Excellent suggestion. I can do that.

I'll take a few baby steps first though, like wait and see if he voluntarilly removes it this week. If not, I'll contact the corporate office again and make them aware of my determination to have the sign removed - without getting specific of course.

 If they don't comply, then I'll move on to your 'Plan B'.

Thanks you!

 

A long time ago, I was working at a secure manufacturing facility - security guards all over.  And I had to go to the "Security Shack" one day for something, don't remember exactly what.  There was a sticker on the window of a very voluptuous woman with little squiggles around her ass like she was wriggling it.  The caption read - "Keep your eyes on the badge."  It ticked me off.

I started by complaining to my manager.  He said he didn't see anything wrong with it.  I said, fine.  I notice there are a number of women security officers and I would be surprised if they were all distracted by other women.  And I was reasonably certain there was a possibility some of the men were not distracted by women.  Perhaps they should have another sticker on the window with some hot young stud in tight jeans with squiggles around his ass.  Next time I went by the shack, I noticed the sticker was no longer in the window.

I didn't think of this argument with your story, because your issue is about religion - and for some reason, I thought it wouldn't be as effective in your situation.  Glad to see I was wrong.

Spit for Jesus.

 

 

Everyone already has the right to do that.  The issue is whether private corporations value a particular ideology enough to risk offending someone.  Sonic clearly did not.  If a local Sonic manager put up a big scarlet "A" and a link to an atheist friendly site I'm sure the upper level people would make them take that down as well.  I'm sure many private advertising companies would turn down atheist friendly ads.  Not as many would turn down religious ads, but that is their right either way.

 

The only reason the atheist bus ads work is they are usually publicly owned ad-space, so the government owners cannot discriminate based on religious content.

Oh and to avoid confusion, I don`t mean people don`t have the right to complain, but they shouldn`t make their complaints sound like legal supenas.

 

 

 

 

QED

 

 

 

 

You should have asked two questions here:

 

Do I like it ?

and

Do I think it should be allowed ?

 

The answer to the first is no, and the answer to the second is yes.

 

 

The point I`m trying to raise and why I posted the  "QED"  [which means "it has been shown that"]at the end of atheistextremist`s post is the fact that atheists are the minority. A lot of things atheists do offends theists. But guess what? Too bad for them. Just because they`re offended doesn`t mean that they can stop the blasphemy challenge and that`s a good thing.

 

Demanding the passage be removed just because you are offended [For the record, you have every right to be offended and express it, but to demand the company take it down is wrong] shows that`s it`s okay to remove offensive thing and guess what that means? We atheists lose. We are the minority. I don`t speak out against taking down offensive things to benefit Theists, I do it for atheists.

 

So no, I don`t have to like the passage or Christianity or theism to say they have the right to put it up and that`s a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are having a 2-dimensional comms issue. I'm saying at least in the USA you can run ads on buses promoting atheism. In Australia they were refused for fear of offending the godly. On the OP, if I saw a sign on the restaurant promoting any god or deity I would never return. I'd prefer my money to go to a godless person. In any case, well done on getting the sign removed.

 

Ed: Sorry - thought that was at me but it's Capt P. 

 

I think I see your point, and I disagree with your opinion. Seems like you're saying, 'Let the theists display their propaganda so we can continue to display ours'.

Personally, I would rather both be removed (so no one is offended) than to have to see the religious crap on display... Better to offend no one than to offend everyone, imo.

Btw, I never 'demanded' the sign be removed nor did I threaten a law suit, as someone else here suggested when I asked for opinions. I stated my objection to the company in a respectable manner and since the sign was removed, I'm led to believe that they agreed with me, that it was inappropriate.

I would also add that if it had been close to Easter or Christmas, I most likely would have ignored it but, this was an obvious 'in your face' propaganda pitch and it was inappropriate for this type of business. If it was a Mom & Pop place, I would not have said anything and simply would not patronize their establishment. This was different.

I can't wait till Xmas, when the Wal Mart clerks start spouting 'God bless you' at the check-out counter, like they did last year and I said nothing about it!

Hah! I love it! Where can I get one? I'm tempted to put one in my front yard.

The Constitution allows it, Sonic Corporate doesn't.  No chain franchise like Sonic would condone it as it is not in the business of religion, it sells burgers.  Their business relies heavily on being able to cater to all people, not just 70% of the population who aren't offended by the notion that their money is being used to promote religion on the front door.

 

Exactly, it is a private business.

Although they do have the right to put that up, as a private business, like you said, they are not in the religion business and I would suspect that this is a franchise owner, or even a store manager who did not ask the corporate side if they could do it. Corporate probably would have said no. My guess is that this sign wont be up long, if the complaint filters up high enough. It would depend on the person reading the complaints and how much they really want to do their job, even if they do believe.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if you found shit like this at Chic Fil Ass and their corporate head ok'ed it.

On the other hand, my former owners where I work had bible quotes on the place mats. It didn't offend me because I was allowed to speak freely about my atheism with the other co-workers, and NO ONE was allowed to talk about religion to the customers UNLESS the customer brought it up first.

We now have a new owner and new place mats, WITHOUT the bible quotes. I do like the fact that the new boss is a bit younger and not religious, or at least not anywhere nearly religious like the old boss. The business has not suffered in the least as a result of removing the bible quotes.

No comparison between a 'discretely placed' bible book name and chapter number printed on the bottom of cups and a 12' x 12' biblical mural plastered on a store front.

Besides, I've always liked:

1 Corinthians 13:13—"And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."

 

Oooh! You just reminded me of somewhere else I've seen bible verses posted on windows: the First National Bank drive-through window. Not a good idea to be a shit disturber where I do my banking ,though.

ps: I love the smilie collection on the forum!

 

 

Why?

 

I tend to agree somewhat with both sides of this debate. It's a little fraught. I would not want god stuff shoved in my face at dinner but as the Captain points out, if we want our stuff they must be allowed their stuff. A key issue is whether or not such a thing should be endorsed by a place of business. I think not. Others argue yes, as long as it's equal. But I think we would all agree we should be allowed to have our signs in the public domain so long as they do not threaten or vilify those whose opinions are opposed to us. Mention of dying (for our sins) and being saved (from a lake of fire) to me carries a serious implicit threat and an implicit moral judgment that my minister-son bias finds very hard to tolerate.

No threats, no vilifications, public domain only (including front yards) and I am fine with it.

 

 

 

pwetty pweeze?

 

 

 

Try our new McFlesh waffers, made from real human flesh, remember "He died for you" and boy is he yummy.

That's okay, I didn't think you were being rude and I can see where it appears to be contradictory...

First, I said 'I'm tempted to put one in my front yard.' I think it's a great ad and I would be tempted to put it up in my yard but, the reality of the consequences of doing so would prevent me from actually doing it. I live in the bible belt, I have neighbors and friends who are Christian and, most importantly, I need a job and am thinking about opening my own business from my home. How smart would it be to advertise the fact that I think religion is BS just because I think it is? Not at all.

I bet that Sonic was more concerned with it's bottom line than the religious beliefs of it's franchise owner - and I was right.

Another point, as others here have mentioned, it's one thing to state your opinions on your own private property and another to do it in a place of business open to the general public. Of course, it's impossible to never offend anyone but, when you are running a business, you damn well better try or, you're going to lose some of your customers. That's why I feel it's better to (try to) often no one instead of allowing everyone equal opportunity to be offended.

Even though atheism is not a religion, it is a personal belief and I think it should be held to the same restrictions that I think religion should be held to: Don't shove it in other peoples' faces - especially those of a different belief. Just common courtesy. There are some things, I think, that don't need to be made public knowledge... which reminds me of an old Italian saying, which fits perfectly in this situation:'Don't shit where you eat'.

I'd say it's the hair.  If I were younger, mine would be those colors! I like the new Scene Kid look too. I have been using more black eyeliner.

You mean 'copy rights' or, legal rights? I would think you could sell them as long as the copyright owner agreed. Good luck with your business, too!

Only if you got caught. Wink wink.  I know what you mean and I've had the same thought while driving past those signs. There is a large vacant field on the side of the highway on the way to Wallyworld that used to have about 500 little white crosses planted in the field with a sign about abortion. I never found out who did put them there but, it has all been removed.

Absolutely!

ps, I love your avatar...that's the difference between art and porn. Isn't her name Betty something?

Edit: Found her: Bettie Page, http://www.bettiepage.com/about/about.php

Yeah I love Bettie Page and my intent is getting copyrights to sell her stuff too. I found a guy who can do the screen printing as long as I do so one down and idk how many to go. I'm also doing the "tobaco" products but I'm trying the online thing first. This way for the ones who don't like to smoke and don't like atheist stuff, they have an alternative. Oh and I'm 32 I just refuse to get old lol.

 

If you have ever been to In N Out and had a double-double you'd never even know there was a verse on it as the food oozes all over the wrapper. And who ever looks at the bottom of a cup?

One use of In N Out Burger bumper stickers was to cut off the B & r in burger resulting in In N Out Urge.

This resulted in the company changing burger to much smaller letters and relocating it.

 

Not necessarily- a large part would depend on the judge, and the particulars of the case.  If there were other atheists on staff- that the owner knew were atheists- then that could be an argument against hiring discrimination; though the chances of that are at least somewhat unlikely.

As far as a hostile working environment goes, though, this is still a fairly hot issue today, and the Supreme court is a little murky on it.

You can find numerous new and old documents and articles on it- a quick Google search gives me this as one of my first hits:

http://ecmappdlv03.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_legislation_and_public_policy/documen...

 

That's actually a pro-religious 'proselytism and special treatment' article bitching about the Supreme court's interpretations of harassment and discrimination not giving preferential treatment to religion, but it makes the point.

 

 

And that is to say, religious harassment is no different than sexual harassment in the eyes of the courts.

 

That is to say, they're bitching about the fact that in cases of sexual harassment, one may need to make it clear that the advances are unwelcome- while in cases of religious harassment- even, possibly, in cases where it isn't hate based- e.g. being constantly told about Jesus and how you should convert to be saved, or being constantly invited to church despite your rejections of the invitation.

 

I'm not keen on spending all evening reading court precedent on posters and sexual harassment, but here are a few links for you:

 

 

 

In other words, if the poster were sexual instead of religious, seems like most companies have policies against those kinds of thing- and those policies probably follow from court precedent.  And remember, as established, sexual and religious harassment are treated similarly.

 

As I said, I don't have time to read all night, but from what I've skimmed, all I can see if conservatives complaining about how the courts are interpreting religious harassment.

I haven't come across anything that would indicate such a lawsuit would be a likely loss- particularly if a complaint had been lodged (in which case it would be very likely to be a successful harassment suit). 

And in the case of the employer, and not just another employee, participating in the harassing action (hanging such an advertisement as a clearly coercive endorsement) WITH a complaint from the employee- do you really think a court would ignore that? 

Even with a conservative judge, it's very likely that kind of thing would be ordered down, as it has no place in that workplace.

 

I'm not sure what I need to do to convince you that the poster in question is not O.K.