Current Events > Black man kicked out of restaurant because he wearing a crucifix.

(+) Yeah! (+)

A restaurant in Indianapolis, Ind., allegedly asked a customer to leave because of the size of the cross and necklace he was wearing.

Jerry Bond was out with his minister and some friends at Kilroys Bar N Grill last month when he said he was singled out by a bouncer who came up to him and asked him to remove his necklace or leave the restaurant.

The bouncer comes back over, really bad attitude, [and says] Were going to ask you to either tuck your necklace, remove it or you have to leave, Bond said to WRAL. Im not going to tuck my cross in because of my beliefs. I believe in wearing this cross and what it represents.

Kilroys Bar N Grill has a posted dress code outside the entrance of the establishment that bans large chains worn outside of shirts.

Bond said he left the establishment while his friends stayed behind and spoke to the manager. Bond said he left while his minister stayed behind and talked to the manager.

Minister David Latimore asked the manger, FOX8 reported, So, I asked him, 'what is a large necklace? What does that mean? What size is large?' He couldn't tell me.

Latimore said he followed up with the restaurant in an email asking about the policy and the incident, but received no response.

"If you have business in this city you should treat your customers a certain way and for us to turn a blind eye to it and continue to treat customers this way it's just not right, the pastor said. It's something I won't stand for.

The group planned a protest Saturday in response to the restaurants policy.

"It was a horrible situation and I mean it was embarrassing just to go somewhere and try to enjoy friends and company and get embarrassed like this for no reason, Bond told FOX8. It's like I was just singled out for no reason.

Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/06/10/man-asked-to-leave-restaurant-because-large-cross-necklace-claims.html


Man liberals won't know who to side with on this one.
---

sounds like that place is soon going out of business

UnfairRepresent posted...

Man liberals won't know who to side with on this one.

i was going to respond seriously to this topic but then you went and ruined it before it even started with that line. good job.
---

He was*

Excuse me
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

i was going to respond seriously

"I don't know who to support and got called it on so I'm talking shit"

Yes we know
---

I support the restaurant because as dumb as their policy is it doesn't directly single out a protected class. But you can fuck off, UR...Don't know why i even gave you a serious reply with your obvious race baiting and shit posting.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

I support the restaurant because as dumb as their policy is it doesn't directly single out a protected class. But you can fuck off, UR...Don't know why i even gave you a serious reply with your obvious race baiting and shit posting.

he does nothing but spam news articles and get bitch slapped in arguments...dude is definitely odd
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

I support the restaurant because as dumb as their policy is it doesn't directly single out a protected class. But you can fuck off, UR...Don't know why i even gave you a serious reply with your obvious race baiting and shit posting.

You support policies that prevent the free expression of religion, but not policies that do not support the free expression of sexuality?
---

Howl posted...

You support policies that prevent the free expression of religion, but not policies that do not support the free expression of sexuality?

the policy says nothing about specific religious chains. it covers all chains. freedom to express your religion has nothing to do with this. like i said, the policy is incredibly dumb but its not targeting a specific religion.
---

Is that yo chain?!

TheVipaGTS posted...

Howl posted...

You support policies that prevent the free expression of religion, but not policies that do not support the free expression of sexuality?

the policy says nothing about specific religious chains. it covers all chains. freedom to express your religion has nothing to do with this. like i said, the policy is incredibly dumb but its not targeting a specific religion.

Freedom to express his religion has everything to do with it. Him wearing a crucifix is him expressing his religion.
---

Is this karma for how (some) of them treat the gays? :v What goes around comes around.
---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

Yea. and he can still be a religious man without showing off his chain. his religion isn't being taken from him because he's being asked to tuck in his chain. The policy is idiotic but didn't target his religion at all.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

Yea. and he can still be a religious man without showing off his chain. his religion isn't being taken from him because he's being asked to tuck in his chain. The policy is idiotic but didn't target his religion at all.

Gay people are free to be gay without forcing a private business owner to make a cake for them. Their sexuality is not being taken from them because he will not custom make a cake for them.

I love how you are unable to form consistent rational thoughts. It's really fun to witness you attempt to hold simultaneously contradictory views.
---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

Can gay people not have a gay wedding and a cake by simply buying it at another shop, then?

That's not the same thing. They are being discriminated against because of their sexuality. a trait they are born with, thus, its protected. This man is being discriminated against because of the size of his chain, not his religion. I disagree with the restaurant overall for having such a stupid policy, but unfortunately, the restaurant is protected in this case.

If a restaurant had a "no shirt no service" policy and someone walked in with a giant cross tattoo on their chests should they have to serve the person because his tattoo is religious and being asked to cover it up hurts his religious freedom? THAT is a better comparison than you're Gay Wedding Cake try...
---

it sortof does target a specific religion. Christians more than other religions, tend to wear necklaces.

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

Yea. and he can still be a religious man without showing off his chain. his religion isn't being taken from him because he's being asked to tuck in his chain. The policy is idiotic but didn't target his religion at all.

Can gay people not have a gay wedding and a cake by simply buying it at another shop, then? Because they can still be gay and their sexuality isn't being taken away from them. They were simply being asked to go to a different baker if that's the specific type of cake they wanted.

this isnt the same thing at all. he isnt being denied service because of who he is or what he believes, it is because of a piece of jewelry that they dont allow. the more apt analogy would be like france that doesnt allow head covers in public, which is also fair next even though it can affect muslim women. it isnt targeting his beliefs or refusing him service because of what he believes, it is a blanket ban for certain apparel
---

Howl posted...

I love how you are unable to form consistent rational thoughts. It's really fun to witness you attempt to hold simultaneously contradictory views.

This is why he is so quick to just insult people and make non-statements rather than maturely have conversations with people.

Reminds me a lot of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRVbfEDTd_A" data-time="
---

Zikten posted...

sounds like that place is soon going out of business

Depends on the race of the owners and bouncer
---

So it had nothing to do with his race or it being a crucifix. Next time pay attention to the dress code.
---

Zikten posted...

it sortof does target a specific religion. Christians more than other religions, tend to wear necklaces.

that doesnt matter. it targets anyone who wears a chain
---

gatorsPENSbucs posted...

ext time pay attention to the dress code.

They asked what the dress code was and the management didn't know...
---

It sucks, but if it was indeed a written and displayed rule then it's fair. It would be better if they did specify what qualifies as too big though.
---

Tfw getting rekt in an argument by a jailblazers fan rmao
---

Seems like a silly rule, I'd be curious to know what the reasoning is. But it doesn't appear to be singling him out or specifically targeting Christians. They gave him the option of tucking it in, which seems fairly reasonable, and he'd rather make a big stink over it.
---

Why couldn't the restaurant cite, what they consider "large"? The necklace looked fine to me. Now, something like John cena wore during his thug life days, yea too big.

If you are going to have a policy restricting size of chains, at least have a measurement on what you think is large. What I may find is suitable, another may find ridiculously large and in needed.
---

I agree with the customer here. If the restaurant had a specific definition of "large necklace", I'd support the restaurant, they don't, so I don't support them.

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

The policy is against chains, not Christians.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Man liberals won't know who to side with on this one.

i was going to respond seriously to this topic but then you went and ruined it before it even started with that line. good job.

lol
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

Yea. and he can still be a religious man without showing off his chain. his religion isn't being taken from him because he's being asked to tuck in his chain. The policy is idiotic but didn't target his religion at all.

You're no better than the establishment if you agree with the policy being misapplied like this (that is NOT a large chain by any stretch of the imagination). You probably would be singing a different tune if the restaurant had a no headwear policy and kicked out a Muslim or Sikh man for wearing a turban or a Jew for wearing a yarmulke.
---

I bet if I wore a gas chamber on my neck people would get upset, but somehow the cross gets a little pass

shockthemonkey posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

The policy is against chains, not Christians.

And the policy was against gay wedding cakes, not gays.

...do you think that the issue was whether or not the cake was gay?

Yes that is clearly what he meant. The cake shop owner did not want to make a cake that literally was a homosexual cake that engages in homosexual acts with the same sex as itself.
---

That policy is probably more racist than what this article paints it to be.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

26_Sandman_39 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

doesn't directly single out a protected class

Uh, religion bro.

The policy is against chains, not Christians.

And the policy was against gay wedding cakes, not gays.

...do you think that the issue was whether or not the cake was gay?

Fucking gay cakes

All part of the dastardly liberal agenda
---

Indianapolis, Ind.

Why???

Shut the business down for Christian sensitivity training
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

That policy is probably more racist than what this article paints it to be.

I tihnk that's hard to doubt.

Guys like Vipa will deny it because they want to stick it to Christians but the chain wasn't big and the restaurant had no definition of what a chain was.

They just have had problems with annoying black guys and the chain dress code gives them an excuse to boot out black people

How many white guys or Japanese girls do you see wearing chains around their necks while eating lunch?
---

Was the owner a CEman?
---