Arbys Employee Refuses to Serve Police Officer

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
N

nw2u

Guest
#61
Nay, he can refuse service and he all ready did. As I said, it may be considered unwise, he may have to face consequences, but he is within his right to refuse service to anyone even for the most petty of reasons.

EDIT: I agree though that by the way the story is told it seems personal, but it is what it is.
Now, I see your point. There were consequences and rightly so. It's like saying someone has the right to rob a bank, but would face consequences.
 
G

Galahad

Guest
#62
What? That's the point?

I thought the point was that the man has the right to deny service like his boss said and just like the woman has the right to deny condoning sodomy. Fair is fair.
It is not that simple. Really isn't.

The Arby's sandwich and other food is amoral. Serving food to a customer does not give the appearance of support to the moral behavior or lack there of the guest. Additionally, the employee sign on to serve the general public.

The Kentucky clerk did not phantom that there would ever come a time that this country would ever, ever, ever take God's own plan and ordinance and pervert it. The State has been recognizing marriage as that between a male and a femal, a man and a woman since its founding.

But in came the funding of universities, the fortresses of liberal ideology. And too people started listening to false teachers. And false charges were splashed before us: You hate gays. Etc. Etc. Then to really top it off, an antichrist became pres. And he changed his mind. He had a conversation with his family at their dinner table and realized his daughters' friends had parents who were same sex couples. ....

Well Supreme Court of Sin rules, and now same sex is a right and protected.

The clerk did not sign onto that. Not one bit. Even if she took an oath.
There's another fact associated with the clerk that is not with the server. The clerk has to have her name appear as authorizing ??? the marriage. There's more to that than simply handing a same sex couple a bag of food. (Not same sex couple in the report, but just added that for emphasis, which is now gone by this clarification). I understand the clerk's position. I don't understand the server's.

Wish the courts would hear the complaint of the clerk.

Her job description changed and became a moral issue for her.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#63
Now, I see your point. There were consequences and rightly so. It's like saying someone has the right to rob a bank, but would face consequences.
Nay, for the bank robber has no right to steal that which is not his. A better analogy be like the bank teller refusing to cash a check. Might be unwise, might cause the teller to face reprimand, but the teller is within their right to serve or not serve whomever.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#64
It is not that simple. Really isn't.

The Arby's sandwich and other food is amoral. Serving food to a customer does not give the appearance of support to the moral behavior or lack there of the guest. Additionally, the employee sign on to serve the general public.

The Kentucky clerk did not phantom that there would ever come a time that this country would ever, ever, ever take God's own plan and ordinance and pervert it. The State has been recognizing marriage as that between a male and a femal, a man and a woman since its founding.

But in came the funding of universities, the fortresses of liberal ideology. And too people started listening to false teachers. And false charges were splashed before us: You hate gays. Etc. Etc. Then to really top it off, an antichrist became pres. And he changed his mind. He had a conversation with his family at their dinner table and realized his daughters' friends had parents who were same sex couples. ....

Well Supreme Court of Sin rules, and now same sex is a right and protected.

The clerk did not sign onto that. Not one bit. Even if she took an oath.
There's another fact associated with the clerk that is not with the server. The clerk has to have her name appear as authorizing ??? the marriage. There's more to that than simply handing a same sex couple a bag of food. (Not same sex couple in the report, but just added that for emphasis, which is now gone by this clarification). I understand the clerk's position. I don't understand the server's.

Wish the courts would hear the complaint of the clerk.

Her job description changed and became a moral issue for her.
No because whether the issue is moral or amoral a person has a right to refuse to do that which goes against their beliefs.

I agree with most of your analyses though on how society has become debauched, though I'd say the Supreme Court by trying to force sexual abuse to be recognized as marriage has not made it lawful nor does it make it a right, but has rather made the Supreme Court illegitimate by violating Theory of Law, which is the basis for which the Supreme Court had legitimacy to act as a court of law.
 
G

Galahad

Guest
#65
Now, I see your point. There were consequences and rightly so. It's like saying someone has the right to rob a bank, but would face consequences.
If you see the point, then go back and change the statement. The statement is not valid. It is not precise or clear.

"He has the right to deny service to anyone he wants to." That's not correct. Perhaps not valid. Why? Because "right" is not the fitting word.

He has the power to deny service. But he does not have the right. Arby's doesn't give him the right. God doesn't give him the right.

If he has the right to deny service. Guess what. Arby's does not have the legal authority to fire him. None. That's what the statement means. He has the right the authorization from Arby's to deny service to the officer.

No. He doesn't. Arby's says No. He don't have our authority to deny service to that person. No sir.

You say, by his own standard he does. If you conclude that, it still doesn't hold up.
He's not on his own time when he's working. His own standard of right is null and void. It's Arby's time. It's Arby's power and rights that are the standard.
 
Last edited:
N

nw2u

Guest
#66
This post below is off-topic, though I imagined that's where this thread was headed.

Here's the problem I see with this and I don't know how to solve it. Does God allow people to sin? Does He allow us to make our own choices and offer us a way to become more aligned with His will?

Christians have an obligation to uphold the laws of God. Does anyone else? What is the correct way to handle these changes in laws?

Seriously, I don't know how to handle these things. I know they are sinning, but what do I have the right to do about it? Rebuking or walking away seems to be what Jesus did, but I'm not the most knowledgeable Christian. I won't say I am absolutely correct in my knowledge and I know it isn't complete. Seems there are better ways to handle this, but I absolutely see your point. It's the question for the age. How to handle abortions, same-sex marriage and so forth, when having to decide based on Christian values and beliefs.

I don't have the answers, but I will follow this thread. There are many knowledgeable Christians here and I learn many things. Thank you.


It is not that simple. Really isn't.

The Arby's sandwich and other food is amoral. Serving food to a customer does not give the appearance of support to the moral behavior or lack there of the guest. Additionally, the employee sign on to serve the general public.

The Kentucky clerk did not phantom that there would ever come a time that this country would ever, ever, ever take God's own plan and ordinance and pervert it. The State has been recognizing marriage as that between a male and a femal, a man and a woman since its founding.

But in came the funding of universities, the fortresses of liberal ideology. And too people started listening to false teachers. And false charges were splashed before us: You hate gays. Etc. Etc. Then to really top it off, an antichrist became pres. And he changed his mind. He had a conversation with his family at their dinner table and realized his daughters' friends had parents who were same sex couples. ....

Well Supreme Court of Sin rules, and now same sex is a right and protected.

The clerk did not sign onto that. Not one bit. Even if she took an oath.
There's another fact associated with the clerk that is not with the server. The clerk has to have her name appear as authorizing ??? the marriage. There's more to that than simply handing a same sex couple a bag of food. (Not same sex couple in the report, but just added that for emphasis, which is now gone by this clarification). I understand the clerk's position. I don't understand the server's.

Wish the courts would hear the complaint of the clerk.

Her job description changed and became a moral issue for her.
 
G

Galahad

Guest
#67
This post below is off-topic, though I imagined that's where this thread was headed.

Here's the problem I see with this and I don't know how to solve it. Does God allow people to sin? Does He allow us to make our own choices and offer us a way to become more aligned with His will?

Christians have an obligation to uphold the laws of God. Does anyone else? What is the correct way to handle these changes in laws?

Seriously, I don't know how to handle these things. I know they are sinning, but what do I have the right to do about it? Rebuking or walking away seems to be what Jesus did, but I'm not the most knowledgeable Christian. I won't say I am absolutely correct in my knowledge and I know it isn't complete. Seems there are better ways to handle this, but I absolutely see your point. It's the question for the age. How to handle abortions, same-sex marriage and so forth, when having to decide based on Christian values and beliefs.

I don't have the answers, but I will follow this thread. There are many knowledgeable Christians here and I learn many things. Thank you.
No. It is actually on topic. Follow it back. It addresses the very heart of the matter. You just don't see it. Nice try.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#68
If you see the point, then go back and change the statement. The statement is not valid. It is not precise or clear.

"He has the right to deny service to anyone he wants to." That's not correct. Perhaps not valid. Why? Because "right" is not the fitting word.

He has the power to deny service. But he does not have the right. Arby's doesn't give him the right. God doesn't give him the right.

If he has the right to deny service. Guess what. Arby's does not have the legal authority to fire him. None. That's what the statement means. He has the right the authorization from Arby's to deny service to the officer.

No. He doesn't. Arby's says No. He don't have our authority to deny service to that person. No sir.

You say, by his own standard he does. If you conclude that, it still doesn't hold up.
He's not on his own time when he's working. His own standard of right is null and void. It's Arby's time. It's Arby's power and rights that are the standard.
If one would contest his right to refuse service they would go to his manager. The manager reaffirmed his right to deny service. To contest the manager one goes to the corporate higher-ups. The corporate higher-ups deny his right, but I would hold he still has the right and therefore as you have said, Arby's should not punish him for he has the right and his highest superior present at the time reaffirmed his right.
 

Utah

Banned
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#69
Kinda like the thrown statement "He has a right to deny service to anyone he wants to." That carries very little meaning whatsoever. It's empty. Vain.

It's actually more aligned with anarchy. You know, those disobedient liberals who throw rocks into business and spray paint walls and jump on cars. "We have a right."
Bingo! That's all this is for GIS, rebellion, pure and simple. A cop got dissed and he loves it. The 19 year old Arby's punk does not have a right to deny service to anyone without provocation. What is more accurate is to say the punk has the opportunity to deny service, which he did, but he does not have the right. If he had the right, Arby's brass would not have apologized to the Po-Po like they did. And you know darn well cops will be eating at very discounted prices at Arby's for the unforeseeable future.
 
G

Galahad

Guest
#70
No because whether the issue is moral or amoral a person has a right to refuse to do that which goes against their beliefs.

I agree with most of your analyses though on how society has become debauched, though I'd say the Supreme Court by trying to force sexual abuse to be recognized as marriage has not made it lawful nor does it make it a right, but has rather made the Supreme Court illegitimate by violating Theory of Law, which is the basis for which the Supreme Court had legitimacy to act as a court of law.
Okay. But I've not read where you define what you mean by "right". What does that actually mean to you?

The person exercised "his right," but then he was fired.

I have the right to drive a car. But if I don't have insurance or a license, I no longer have the right.
I have the power to drive the car, but not the right to.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#71
Bingo! That's all this is for GIS, rebellion, pure and simple. A cop got dissed and he loves it. The 19 year old Arby's punk does not have a right to deny service to anyone without provocation. What is more accurate is to say the punk has the opportunity to deny service, which he did, but he does not have the right. If he had the right, Arby's brass would not have apologized to the Po-Po like they did. And you know darn well cops will be eating at very discounted prices at Arby's for the unforeseeable future.
Nay, you just want to punish people and see harm come to them. Everyone has a right to refuse to do that which is against their beliefs.
 

Utah

Banned
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#72
By the way, I looked up the law about this. Restaurants like this are not allowed to refuse service except in a few situations.
Can you say that a little louder so our anarchists can hear?

And being the Po-Po ain't one of those situations.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#73
Okay. But I've not read where you define what you mean by "right". What does that actually mean to you?

The person exercised "his right," but then he was fired.

I have the right to drive a car. But if I don't have insurance or a license, I no longer have the right.
I have the power to drive the car, but not the right to.
Okay that is a fair point. A right is what one is entitled to by default. For instance I have a right, whether one says it is lawful or unlawful to have an opinion.
 

Utah

Banned
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#74
By his own right and his conscience he can refuse service. Might be unwise, might come with consequences, but he certainly has the right to serve or not serve whomever he pleases.
Boy you sure are back peddling now. Now you're changing the wording. You can't admit you're wrong.

Your arrogance would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
 

Utah

Banned
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#75
Nay, he can refuse service and he all ready did. As I said, it may be considered unwise, he may have to face consequences, but he is within his right to refuse service to anyone even for the most petty of reasons.

EDIT: I agree though that by the way the story is told it seems personal, but it is what it is.
How do people face consequences when they have a RIGHT to do something?
 
Feb 26, 2015
737
7
0
#76
Romans 13:1-14
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.
[SUP]6 [/SUP] For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
[SUP]10 [/SUP] Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.


Read Romans chapter 13. This should help clear up any confusion as to what we are to do. And if you still are confused, reread Romans Chapter 13 again.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#77
Boy you sure are back peddling now. Now you're changing the wording. You can't admit you're wrong.

Your arrogance would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
You be arrogant, always seeking men's blood and telling lies about people like your father.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#78
How do people face consequences when they have a RIGHT to do something?
There are just consequences and there are unjust consequences, but consequences come no matter what.
 

Utah

Banned
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#79
Nay, you just want to punish people and see harm come to them. Everyone has a right to refuse to do that which is against their beliefs.
Refusing food to a hungry person is against someone's beliefs and you support that?

Can't wait to see you try to explain that one to Jesus regarding His Commands in Matthew 25.