A(n Honestly) Classy Apology from the Gelato Mio Owner

This is awesome!  What a good person.  This makes me wonder what’s worse:  A performer planning out an offensive performance purposefully with the intent to offend others, or a guy who reacts to that performance and offends others in a brief moment of frustration.    

I dunno man, I guess I appreciate that he’s sorry and there’s really nothing else you can do but say sorry, but no one was turned away?  Yeah, they were.  I mean, the sign turned people away so he didn’t have to do it himself.  Just seems like a dude trying to handle bad PR more than anything.

Seems like a sincere apology to me especially when you consider what he witnessed and put your self in his shoes.

But it’s okay that the shit in the Bible, that many, many people live by, and think others should live by, offends me. 

So if it WAS an atheist convention the sign would have been justified? I accept his apology, but I don’t think he sees what’s going on here.

I’m surprised by PZ’s reaction to this on Twitter.  I mean, what else could the guy have said?  It was a total apology and retraction.  To not accept that is just pointless, and achieves nothing.  

I completely disagree that this makes everything okay. Say he heard that Pride Day was going on and thought it was some patriotic gathering; he instead saw gay couples kissing, and subsequently banned them from his establishment as a kneejerk panicked response? That would not be quickly forgiven, likely by many; why should this be treated any differently when the bigotry was just as real? 

Bigotry against atheists is *not* okay, and I’m frankly sick of being expected to be the “bigger woman” for the sake of example. That they hold irrational, incorrect beliefs about which they’re so insecure as to take any contrary view as a direct, hostile, PERSONAL attack is not our problem. I think the reaction thus far has been more than reasonable — his first instinct was to rebuke atheists from his establishment, so we now willingly stay away (along with anyone else who finds that kind of bigoted reaction objectionable). Nobody’s visited his house, nobody’s kicked his dog or anything even remotely close to that. I think he’s gotten a fitting, decent response. 

Seriously. I’d never advocate anything that wasn’t legally protected and generally encouraged as a form of protest, but I’m also appalled so many are willing to chastise others for voting with their dollar the moment he approaches with his cap in hand. These kinds of reactions are the EXACT problem that so many atheists in even LESS welcoming parts of the country face when trying to live their lives openly and as they see fit. The very fact that Christians have the privilege they do is a direct reason why I think so many of us feel the need to forever extend the olive branch, stroke their hair and reassure them that everything is alright.

To hell with that. This was wrong, and there’s no reason why he can’t face the natural consequences of such. If you’re inclined to just shrug and forget, fine. But don’t act as if the rest of us don’t have every reason to want to keep our hard-earned money out of his hands.

People fuck up. Poor guy made an honest mistake. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. I mean, to be fair, he walked in AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME. Too bad old PZ is being all bearded and pissy about it…

It’s not what he did after that even concerns me. He admitted that, “in the heat of the moment”, he had to let everyone know how he felt. I do not believe that this action, now, is how he really feels; I believe the action he took when he felt it was just him, in his store, with a couple of atheists hanging around, atheists most other people probably wouldn’t tolerate either, and he could basically do whatever he wanted with probably minimal scrutiny. That kind of reaction is a telling one. 

Seriously — what if it had been blacks, and his first “instinct” was to write “No [N-words]” across the door? If that expression is within him and was the first immediate thing to come out, then obviously, somewhere inside, THAT is how he feels about us. When we express our disdain for his religion (not HIM, mind you, even though he probably conflated that at the time — his religion. A completely separate thing from his specific person), we’re not welcome. 
I think this *would* accomplish something; namely, if enough people were properly outraged about a local business owner practicing discrimination, he’d lose customers and learn how absolutely not okay discrimination is, “heat of the moment” or not. I doubt such a pivotal learning moment would ever come again in his lifetime, and here I’m seeing people just saying, “Eh.” 

What more does PZ want?  A public flogging?

I think this should be treated with the same amount of outrage as a sign that said “No Jews” or “No Blacks” or “No Gays”.  He needs to do much more than apologize.  At the very least I think he needs to state he acknowledges that he violated people’s civil rights and he will address his ignorance by taking a class in civil right’s law for business owners.

To add insult to injury, his idea of reconciliation is 10% off *at his place of business*? Are to we think that maybe he’s afraid of losing business, and not only is he trying to stop that from happening, but is also expecting us to use OUR money to prevent it? The same people who weren’t welcome when they insulted a handful of characters in a book he likes? 

“Hey, black people who I forced out of my diner — please forgive me for being so awful, as I forgot that your money spends JUST LIKE white money. Tell you what — how about you keep frequenting MY establishment, but just pay maybe 10% less as a favor to me . . . er, you. Deal?”

Preposterous.

Who’s being obnoxious? Not accepting his apology and resolving not to frequent his place of business is obnoxious, really? 

I missed the part where we were calling in death threats, egging his house, sending him goatse pictures, etc. If this is obnoxious, then I’m honestly stunned — what will someone actually have to do to make you think, “Gee, whiz, maybe WE should stop seeing civility and tolerance as a privilege and more as a RIGHT”? 

I didn”t say that atheists should pander to people like him, because obviously, they shouldn’t. What he did was stupid and completely unreasonable.

Look, no one has to go to his gelato shop. That’s fine. But if he’s offering an apology, acknowledging he screwed up, why shouldn’t we accept it?

I find much of what Xians say to be very offensive and morally reprehensible.  However, if I take that reaction and put up a sign on my business denying them access then that would be a violation of their civil right to public accommodation.  As an owner of 2 businesses Andy should know that he can’t exclude a class of people from his business on religious grounds.  His apology isn’t addressing the real issue–that his actions were a violation of people’s civil rights.

No, he has every right to be offended. What he doesn’t have is a right to expect to not be offended. I’m not saying the offending act was wrong, I’m just saying we shouldn’t get all huffy when someone gets offended. His initial reaction to being offended was wrong (offensive), and proper action was taken in response. Assuming his apology is sincere, he appears to have learned an important lesson.

“I do not believe that this action, now, is how he really feels”
We can’t mind-read.  He gave a thorough apology in writing – quite an astonishingly apologetic apology too.  That’s great.  Job done.  If we atheists got that kind of apology from those who were prejudiced, it would be great.

Not to move on from this seems to me to be petulant for the sake of being petulant.

I’m certainly not huffy that he got offended (although it’s still ridiculous — an all-powerful deity can’t stand up for himself? Truly? Are their beliefs that fickle?). I’m huffy that he justified discrimination with his offense, then quickly backpedaled and is now all hang-dog, talking about learning his lesson, without even a clear explanation as to HOW he learned said lesson. All I’ve heard is “I’m sorry” and “I was wrong”. 

Okay; so previously, you were to the point of telling us all to bugger off because you were so offended. Now, you’re wrong. What happened between these two states? What life-changing thing caused this shift? 

The assumption that his apology is sincere is not one I feel in any way inclined to make without more information.

To see that sort of hateful bigoted mockery of his core beliefs would surely cause him to react in an equally hateful and bigoted way. You say that this person wasn’t criticized – just his religion. That’s a little like saying that you weren’t mocking the transvestite – just the idea of gender switching. When we mock another group’s choices, we are guilty of bigotry. The anger and persecution you feel? It’s the exact unwelcoming feeling he felt when he encountered an atheist revivalist at a convention that (if it had lived up to it’s name) should have been promoting science and critical thinking. Hypocrisy!

But go ahead and continue to rate him low on Yelp even after his apology. It shows that we are the hateful, unforgiving robots that we have been labeled.

I agree with this… it may have been up for only 10 minutes, but he had the sentiment and he put it up.  I think someone quickly told him it wasn’t a prudent business decision and he realized how much money he could lose, so he pulled it down, perhaps not knowing someone had taken a picture and that no one would be the wiser.  Too bad people have cell phones and internet connections, eh Andy?

I’m not there, but as an atheist, I accept his apology with conditions.  I would forgive him but I would not frequent his business.  He has the right to his beliefs and his anger at that moment.  I also have the right to not frequent businesses that would judge me on the actions of one person who may share my nonbelief.  I accept all Christians regardless what the Phelps clan or other intolerant asses may do… so should he.

It’s not an apology.  It’s a capitulation to pressure that everyone else said he did something wrong.  He explains no realization, no “a-ha” moment, no lesson.

Even Stan on South Park can step forward every week and tell us what he learned.

What he witnessed was someone exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and decided to use it as an excuse to violate other peoples’ rights.

No, I wouldn’t react that way Andy did.  He reacted to being offended by excluding an entire class of people from his business.  This is a civil rights violation and Andy needs to acknowledge this.  However, Andy has yet to apologize for violating the civil rights of those he tried to exclude from his business. 

I agree with you completely… apology accepted with conditions.  He realized he was wrong to do that but his decision to remove the sign and apologize are for business reasons, not because he truly thinks he was wrong.  It is motivated by money and his bible, and I don’t accept that.  Why do we always have to kowtow to believers by saying, “Sure you can kick me and continue wanting to kick me, it’s okay, I know it makes you feel bad doing so.”???  No more.

I strongly disagree with PZ on this. Why should we only make an example of his mistake, and not of his recognition of said mistake. Surely what we want is for people to let go of the intolerance their religion inculcates, and to accept atheists as equal members of society. He is a great example of someone doing just that.

Accepting it is pointless and achieves nothing, other than to make it known to christians, who already think mumbling a few words is sufficient for redemption,  that all it takes to get atheists to back off is some superficial contrition.

I live in a country where I am a member of the most despised minority, where the bigotry Mr GelatoGuy expressed is regarded as perfectly acceptable by the majority. I am going to stand up to it forcefully, and I’m not going to back down because the guy felt some economic heat and realized he was screwing over his business.

He has the right to be offended. That does not compel me to have any obligation to accept his apology, and I won’t. That’s where it stands; I’m certainly not advocating public flogging, I’m just saying I will not give bigotry a pass.

Also, I’m disgusted by the atheists who respond by throwing Sam Singleton under the bus, as if it’s perfectly reasonable for a Christian to start discriminating against atheists after hearing, oh horrors, Brother Sam. What is this crap about “THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME”? Gawdamn, I have to work harder at making all the time the worst possible time for godbothering ninnies.

Your Stockholm Syndrome is your business. Sure, I could mock gender-switching as an idea rather than the transvestite who practices it, but why would I do either? Gender dysphoria is a proven phenomenon; it’s never once hurt anyone or caused any discrimination inherent to itself — what would I be mocking? 

Their gods, their mythos are all both unsubstantiated and party to some of the worst persecution both of old and of late. They can inextricably immerse themselves in it all they want; doesn’t make it my responsibility when they take personal offense to my laundry list of flaws and malicious acts their god is said to have committed, among other things.

I have no doubt Skepticon itself was devoted to critical thinking (as I see Skepticon as inherently separate from a few who chose to attend it), but I also believe that exceptionalism regarding critical thinking as it applies to RELIGION is bogus. Just because it’s more offensive to more people to see Judeo-Christian dogma dissected than it is for people to be skeptical about things like homeopathy or cryptozoology doesn’t mean they aren’t well within their rights to do it, or that they’ve done anything wrong (especially to warrant the treatment they got from Andy). Unless you’re about to tell me that there’s no way to prove their religion wrong, and then I’m just going to laugh at you for being silly.

The guy acted like a dick in the heat of the moment, then realized his mistake and apologized. PZ doesn’t have that excuse. He is being a bigger dick.

This makes them rethink their beliefs critically how?

I say, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a human being and as such prone to make bad decisions based on rash emotions, so I wouldn’t pin him as the Adolf Hitler of the 21th century just yet.

You know he’s only apologising because he realised what effect it was going to have on his business. Not sincere. AT ALL.

I see. It’s acceptable to apply bigotry to groups that deserve it? Is that your argument? I think we can all see how sticky that path can become if you follow it.

Proving a religion wrong, arguing for evolution and an ancient Earth, are far different than blaspheming their god for a communal laugh. By all means, share the scholarly evidence for a naturally derived world — that’s the kind of skepticism that represents our best qualities. But when you intersperse that with a bigoted comedy show, you undercut everything else by making us seem like bullies. And then to keep harping after an apology continues this bullying attitude indefinitely. Sometimes it goes too far, and there are a select few who don’t want to identify with this behavior.

The reason that old school skeptics aren’t comfortable with atheism being the new skepticism is not entirely because of branding confusion or accommodation. The real reason is that performances like Sam Singleton’s are an antithesis to the outreach and science advocacy pioneered by Sagan (and others). It belongs at an atheism convention.

When someone apologises for something that they do wrong I think that it’s only right to accept that apology at face value.  He was wrong to act in the way he did and has apologised for it.  So he’s a Christian and has all the crappy baggage that goes with that, nobody expects him to change that or to have an epiphany.  That’s asking too much.

Last I heard of the account, Sam Singleton did not walk up to Andy, secure his acknowledgment that he was a Christian, then launch into an anti-Christian tirade just to upset him. He was talking amongst other friends well outside of his establishment, and Andy happened to hear it. Are we to simply keep these discussions to ourselves for fear of offending someone? What other discussions do we need to censor to avoid offense? Does the offense they generate make the points any less valid? 

Personally, I think you make the mistake of assuming that Christians aren’t aware that we’re generally normal people; I’m sure there are some exceptions, but for the most part, we don’t have horns and we don’t necessarily stand out in a crowd. We’re human beings; it isn’t US they hate, as if we’re some dangerous species. What they hate, what makes them uncomfortable, is how our dissection of Judeo-Christianity creates cognitive dissonance (or amplifies that which already exists). It doesn’t allow them to comfortably have those beliefs, to allow them to go unchallenged. What you’re basically proposing is that we capitulate, and NEVER speak of the flaws and holes in Christianity around a religious person. 

If you’re okay with that, then good luck to you. I’m not okay with that. 

Religion is an incredibly powerful force in the world; therefore, to act as if we need to keep skepticism at arm’s length from it to avoid hurt feelings or to further promote science is just . . . wrong. Do you honestly expect someone to truly and openly show interest in skepticism when he has to keep religion in a guarded part of his mind? Because eventually questions in all other areas of life that religion touches (and that’s most of them) are going to rear their heads, and the mind is going to spring shut again like a steel trap. Stop insisting religion somehow be held sacred and “safe” from skepticism. If ANYTHING deserves to be under that particular microscope, it’s religion. Whether it LEADS to atheism or not is of no consequence; to essentially shut down the skeptical inquiry of religion before it even begins because you don’t want to hurt Curtis the Christian’s feeling does nobody any favors.

Yeah, nah, you’re just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

Guy made a genuine mistake, realised that he was mistaken, and apologised. That is the best possible outcome of someone making a mistake.

Whatever happened to being polite?

We can never really guess if an apology is sincere or not. So, if we can live and let live, let’s visit his establishment and put this behind us. If we feel that he is insincere and indeed bigoted, we needn’t patronize his establishment.
Simple as that.

I REALLY disagree with you Hemant. The guy is essentially saying: you can be atheists as long as you don’t act like atheists, as long as you never ever express the fact that, being atheists, you don’t believe in God. So essentially: It’s ok to be atheist, as long as you keep it in the closet.

That is just not acceptable. I’m with PZ on this one.

The “Admin” comment posted was from The Godless Monster. Apologies for any confusion that may have been caused.

Wow, there’s an awful lot of offense going around. I’m afraid that I’m going to have to come down on the “accept the apology” side of things, and risk the ire that this will, doubtlessly, bring.

I tend to subscribe to the “don’t be a dick” philosophy, because being a dick doesn’t help get the point across, and mostly just tends to upset and alienate people. For anyone who would like to respond by telling me that they are a discriminated against minority who face abuse every day, and therefore have the right to be a dick, I will pre-emptively counter by reminding you that I live in a country which has, enshrined in it’s employment equality law, the right of a religious, medical, or educational organisation to discriminate on the grounds of religion, and where the vast majority of schools fall under religious patronage, meaning that it is almost impossible to educate one’s children without faith. With that said, please do me the courtesy of not dismissing what I say because I “don’t understand” the discrimination people face.

I think that Andy, like all of us, is human, and that he responded stupidly to something that was designed to provoke a response. He is by no means the only person guilty of such a crime, and I would wager that, if we were to check our own blogs, emails, and Twitter feeds, we’d probably find messages that we regret posting, or that we think now, with hindsight, were posted too hastily. Many people who believe strongly in religion do not merely see religious criticism as criticism of the religion, but as a very personal attack too – I could talk here about the various regions of the brain thought to be associated with religious thought, and the psychosocio-development of religion, but it’s probably more succinct to say that religion and faith are very personal and important things to those who believe, and those who believe tend to identify that belief as a large part of themselves as a person. In short, Andy, as a believer, has an emotional attachment to his faith, and when he saw something that ridiculed that faith, it also felt like something which ridiculed him directly, and his feelings were hurt. He acted, like many of us with hurt feelings do – by lashing out. 

Am I aware that it’s irrational? Yes. Am I aware that it is illegal? Yes. Do we all sometimes do irrational, and possibly even illegal, things when we are feeling hurt and upset? If we’re honest, yes. Do we all apologise, publicly, for our irrational behaviour once the fog of upset has cleared? Well, no, actually. Mostly, we don’t. We shroud ourselves in a cloak of indignation, rights, beliefs, and other such emotional things, and declare that we were right anyway, or that it’s a matter of opinion, or other such placations. We use the cloak of indignation to bat away anything that might damage or tear the cloak, lest it expose the flawed logic beneath it. Privately, we might admit that we were hasty, but publicly, we do not want to lose faith, so we gather our indignicloak about us and continue on. Does that sound like the kind of behaviour that skeptics revere, or more like the kind of thing that we are renouned for ridiculing? It is, I think, much easier to maintain an air of indignant offense than it is to accept that trashing a menu online  or posting hundreds of fake bad reviews was also an emotional reaction that, in hindsight, may be unjustified.

I’m not saying that what Andy did was ok – demonstrably, it wasn’t; it was offensive, and illegal. What I am saying is that he seems to have realised that his behaviour was offensive and illegal, and taken steps to remedy it. Frankly, he could have simply left the sign there, turned away patrons, and picketed the con for the rest of the weekend, and depending on the area he was in, he may well have received popular support for such actions. The fact is that that’s not what he has done. He took down the sign once his initial upset had cleared. He apologised, and has done so again, explaining (but not making excuses for) his behaviour. 

People like Andy don’t understand our beliefs (or lack thereof) simply because we browbeat them into submission. People like Andy may never understand how or why we don’t believe in Jesus or Mohammed or any other deity. It would be nice if, in the future, everyone understood everyone’s beliefs, but if we are honest with ourselves, we might realise that, while we know about the beliefs of Christians, for example, we don’t understand them. I can think of many reasons why someone might have faith, but I don’t understand them because, to me, they seem illogical or hollow or simply weak. I speak the language of science, and evidence, and proof, and they speak the language of belief and faith. 

I’m not saying that atheists should lie prone on the ground and allow people to walk all over them, but what I am saying is that responding like an aggrieved extremist group does not do anyone any favours. Do you honestly think that, if his shop goes out of business, he’ll suddenly have a conversion experience, become an atheist, and start attending Skepticon himself? Do you think that a non-acceptance of, what really appears to be, a sincere apology makes you seem like the better person? Do you believe that making a loud example of this person will help anyone, in any way? I don’t. Tiny steps matter.

You can’t control who gets offended, but you can control the type of message that you send. When you send a message that is intended to exclude and ridicule the cherished beliefs of a particular group, you not only alienate that group but you also alienate people within your own movement. Alienating ourselves not because we are questioning the cognitive dissonance of believers within our movement, but because we are doing it in a thoughtless and unkind way. Do we need to censor our content to satisfy critics like me and gelato-Andy. No, go ahead and support reverse bigotry at skepticon — just don’t act like some sort of persecuted minority when you see that same sort of bigotry reflected your way. It’s the height of hypocrisy.

“For god’s sake, people, doesn’t the world’s
skeptic/atheist/rationalist/humanist/whatever community have bigger
things to tackle than some poor little fella and his ice cream shop?”
Aside from putting up confrontational and obnoxious billboards to make fun of other people’s religious beliefs during their favorite holiday?
No.
And we wonder why so many people can’t stand us.
Bunch of fucking whiners.

Andy, you are OK in my book! Apology accepted.

Skepticon is now a “class of people”?

He was offended by somebody saying ‘god damn’ so what did he do? Turn the other cheek? Love his enemy? No! He rushed back to his shop and broke the law!

My guess is that he eventually realised just how serious it was to
discriminate with that sign and quickly wrote the first apology to
cover his arse in case someone tried to sue him. And now, after a
weekend to discuss it with the family, he has decided to publish more
weasel words – just in case.

I’m a big fan of Sam Singleton. I am also glad that we were able to mount a large enough complaint that Andy had to issue a full apology. Being able to admit one is wrong about something is pretty important to our community, so if Andy is willing to do that, that is a big plus. He may soon realize that he was wrong about other things too. Maybe he can host a small Sam Singleton show and hear what it is all about. That would be great. Goddamn!

Me too!

we always have “bigger things” there is always a “bigger thing” – that doesn’t mean we should let everything but the single biggest thing we can think of slide!

good riddance.

well, obviously!

There is nothing wrong with it and mockery is necessary in some cases, but you should be able to understand how he got the wrong impression if that’s all he saw

But that’s not it at all.
As Hemant says, he was specifically offended by a part that was expressly designed to offend. Had he seen the rest of the conference I think he would have been more understanding.

He’s not telling us to not be atheist as you claim. He’s telling us to stop mocking his religion. We get angry when people deride atheists as being immoral, unguided, sinful e.t.c.. We can’t expect religous people to not be angry when we do the same back to them.

If we want to hold the line that people should keep religion private and to theirselves, then we need to start appreciating that it’s a two way street.

“…that doesn’t mean we should let everything but the single biggest thing we can think of slide!”
I never stated or implied that this is what we should do. What I am implying is that we need to pick and choose our battles carefully if we are going to win the “culture war”.
We can win all the battles and still lose the war.
“Hearts and minds” and all that…

I have a difficult time reconciling what I know of you with what some others here are accusing you of being..specifically a dick. I’m not seeing it.
What I’m wondering is if you may…just MAY be giving some of your fellow human creatures a bit too much credit when it comes to the intelligence department?
Is it remotely possible that your issue with forgiveness in this particular instance is that you assume the fellow is more intelligent than he actually is? Is it not possible that this young man is just not educated or mentally astute enough to understand what he did wrong and why it was wrong? If so, should we be as hard on him as say, for example, some PhD. creatard from The Discovery Institute?
Don’t get me wrong, PZ, if he broke any laws, I’m all for  “making an example” of him in a court of law. I can’t say that I’d be inclined to patronize his business, even after an apology, but I’d still shake his hand and accept his apology if he offered it to me.
Of course, I’d mutter, “dumbass”, as I walked away…

I’m inclined to accept the apology.   His apology comes across as sincere and from me he’ll get the benefit of the doubt.  Public contrition is in short supply these days, especially when directed at non-theists of any stripe.  Thanks Andy.

Lol, says the atheist who is currently uploading christmas music to her ipod…

Saying you KNOW he isn’t sincere sounds to me like those who KNOW I only call myself an atheist because I’m “mad at god.”  It frustrates me when people tell me what I think.

Therefore, I try not to do it to others.

Did the sign say “No Atheists”? No. so, your premise is crap from the start. Give the guy a break. He fucked up, realized it, and apologized. Get over it.

The guy dislikes atheists/non-Xians. Period. His “initial reaction” was to post a sign stating as much, which means that is how he really feels. His apology came from his wallet, not his heart or his brain. Anyone who thinks that apology was sincere is either naive or just plain ignorant. I wouldn’t give this guy one penny of my business, much less the time of day.

What makes you think that apology was sincere? Initial reactions are sincere. He sincerely dislikes atheists/non-Xians. He apologized after people pointed out that he was being a bigoted dick. Then he realized he was pissing away a lot of $ by being such a dick. Don’t be so naive.

Pretty certain that “Skepticon Attendees” is not a protected class.

I propose to dub this unfortunate incident: GelatoGate. All in favour?

The results are different, but the thought process that makes it ok to firebomb newspapers or behead writers is the exact same that goes into denying people bad icecream (gelato eck).  How dare people not respect his sincerely held beliefs, and woe unto anyone who makes public their dissent.

Have you considered an anger management
class?

Excluding people on the basis of belief or non-belief is a protected class under the law.  His statement about Skepticon is not, in-and-of-itself, addressing a protected class; however, he crossed the line and addressed it to a protected class when he said “My Christian Business.”

This is a clear intent that he was saying that other religious, or non-religious, beliefs that are in contradiction to his are not welcome.  That is discrimination on the basis of religion and is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Oh so your a mind reader now?

It appears that what you are telling me is that this is not a difference of kind, but of degree. I understand your point.
There is something to be said for this stance, however, without a lot more information, I’m not quite ready to make that leap.

Totally agree, I also stopped reading PZ around the time of “Elevatorgate” and when he tried to redefine the word Atheist to suit his own ideas.

I do agree there are times when you have to play the dick card, but that doesn’t mean you have to be a dick all the time.

I’d like to think he’s smart enough to have deliberately set the tweet in irony, the “make an example of him”, but I fear his bigotry blinded him. He can no longer see the people, just their beliefs.  Sad really.

“Ya, well this single snap shot shows exactly how this guy feels about atheists/non-Xians.”
Actually this single snap-shot shows how an ignorant dumbass reacts when someone makes fun of his religion. He took it personally and he acted out like an ignoramus. It doesn’t excuse what he did and it makes his actions no less reprehensible, but it does us no good to misrepresent or misinterpret what really happened here.  He may not have even had a well-defined opinion on atheists until he stumbled across this convention.  You have to admit that this is a possibility…

He made it about religion when he said “Christian business”.  Not sure is MO state law goes as far, but in some areas you can’t keep someone from your business even if they are dressed in a way that identifies them as a member of a group (ie, hippies, police, etc).  So, I think it even  “Skepticon Attendees” could be considered a protected class.

A rape analogy may be a bit extreme, however, posting the sign was an illegal act.  I think the issue needs to be addressed as a civil rights violation.  Now, I don’t think the guy deserves jail time or even driven completely out of business.  However, he should pay some penalty beyond loss of business and definitely needs to take a course in civil rights issues for business owners.

Actually, it costs people the opportunity to stand up for their rights.  So, out of politeness I should allow someone to keep me from a business based on religious grounds because to say otherwise is impolite? 

Gee thee to the back of the bus, Jake!  But smile nicely while you go because you don’t want to risk being impolite!

It’s a wonder PZ hasn’t buckled under the weight of the baggage of all those grudges he’s holding onto. (Oops, there goes another one. Bend at the knees). It must be hell in there. It’s nice to know he’s got all of those friends to support him. I can see his side of it. After all, forgiveness is such a Christian value. Heaven knows, we mustn’t go there. Remember kids: you can be good without God, but it’s not a strict requirement.

Except he wasn’t being derided or being called immoral, unguided etc.  His beliefs were being ridiculed because they are ridiculous.  Basically he believes in the Loch Ness Monster and got offended when someone pointed out that that belief is silly.  He used that offense to justify bigotry.  That is not acceptable.  Responding with bigotry should not even have crossed his mind.

The bigger issue is that most all of us are okay with being openly skeptical and harshly critical of Nessie, but much less so when it comes to Jesus.

It’s not crap.  He identified a group of people and then excluded them on religious grounds.  What he did is equivalent to posting a sign that says “No Jews” or “No Blacks” or “No [whatever class of people named here]”.

But, as an atheist, I consider his beliefs as unjustified, and as laughable, as those of an adult who would believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. So in effect, you are saying that I should not be expressing that view; in fact telling me to stay in the closet.

Everyone has the right to their opinions, and to express those opinions. But one does not have the right to not be offended. So what if he was offended?? I’m offended by Christians every day. I find the fact that they pull out their Bibles, a book I find obscene, in public. I find the fact that they pray in public obscene. Would that justify my not serving them? Of course not.

So the guy gets offended, and then breaks the law. He says Oops, sorry, but you’re still not allowed to exist, and that’s ok with you?

What is it about us atheists that makes us such self-loathers that we feel like we should self-censor all the time? Christians certainly don’t feel that way.

How about “Tempest in a waffle cone”?

If what you say is true, then either you’ve never felt offended, or you’re an irrational, insecure person harbouring emotional doubts about what you believe.

Of course, what you said is not true.  People are offended for what seems to be infinitely many reasons.

“I’m certainly not advocating public flogging” That’s all you do anymore, It’s just an “internet” version of public flogging. Your legions of worshiper (Er um… “followers”) who do anything you say will harass, email, humiliate anyone you disapprove of and you know it. 

Do I accept this guys apology?… Well sure, I got news for you, people can say, and do stupid (and sometimes bigoted things) and actually be sorry for them. As someone who has lived in the south, I know bigotry, bigots and people who may do stupid things are a much more complex thing in real life. I know strange isn’t it, even people we label as “bigots” are still all individuals who can’t be put into categories like “bigot” and all be treated as the same. Gasp!

Also as someone who “offends” a lot of people, I understand that there are times when one truly is sorry for offending people. I do this all the time and I find myself apologizing to people I do not know (clerks especially) all the time. But then again I sometimes actually care about what others outside my little circle of friends, think of me sometimes and would like to get along with them. 

And please, Even though I agree with what Sam was doing,  no one is was “throwing Sam Singleton under the bus” for criticizing him. I know it’s above reproach for anyone to disagree with anyone in your little “cool kids skeptic club” but to act like a drama queen over a few internet comments critical of your friend, while hoards of your followers harass some powerless (comparatively) guy while targeting his real life lively hood, just makes part of the skeptic community look no better than some spiteful, cliquey, Mean Girls club.

I’m happy that he took the time to offer a more sincere apology.  According to his beliefs, we will all burn forever after we die so it is nice that he is big-hearted enough to let us at buy ice cream in his shop for the brief time that we are living here on Earth.  That is all we really want anyway.  To be treated fairly and without discrimination while we are alive.  If the God that he loves so much exists and wants to burn us forever in some kind of afterlife, then so be it.  We just want fair and equal treatment in the here and now.   

Illegal how? Is “Skepticon attendee” a protected class? If he had said “no atheists” you might have a point, but he didn’t.

Nice stretch. Not buying it. There is no religious mandate surrounding Skepticon. Are you saying that Christians aren’t welcomed at Skepticon? Only atheists are welcome there?

No, no it wasn’t.

Mike,
Whether it was intentional or not I cannot know, but you entirely misrepresented what I said.

OK, one more time. The owner excluded people from his business based on his perception that they were non-believers in christianity.  As soon as he said ‘christian business’ he MADE it a religious based exclusion and therefore it was illegal. 

I can say I believe in HypnoBunji Cat and if he says I am not welcome in his christian business then he’s excluded me based on religious grounds.  Also, if I state I’m not a christian and he says I’m not welcome in his christian business then he’s discriminated against me on the basis of religion.  It was adding “christian business” to his sign that made excluding people from Skepticon an act of blatant religious discrimination.

“…when a group of people thinks they have authority from the Omnimax
Creator of Everything, it doesn’t matter how many bake sales we hold for
sick kids, we’re still going to be looked at as Other and Wrong.

Do good things because it’s the right thing to do, but do not ever expect that believers will consider you an equal.”

I’m actually in agreement with you. Somehow, my message isn’t getting across.

Read up on ‘public accommodation’ under civil rights laws.  You can not prevent people from patronizing your business based on religion.  The shop owner identifies his business as a “CHRISTIAN business’ and excluded a group on religious basis. 

You keep saying that it wasn’t illegal like that is somehow magically going to make that true.  Stop it.

Good one, but I’m following in the tradition of “that which causes the ruckus” followed by gate. Starting with Watergate and ending with ElevatorGate and GelatoGate.

Are you kidding me? You want to control what people THINK and BELIEVE?
How should we accomplish this bizarre task? Legislation? Water-boarding? How’s about we just shoot all these folks? Would that make you happy?
Hey now…I’ve got a crazy idea…
How about just reigning in stupid behavior via societal pressures and legislation?
WTF dude.
Really.

Meh.  I say keep the heat on until his businesses go under, and then point and laugh.

“Skepticon was promoting science and critical thinking.  Where do you get the idea that treating the bullshit of faith repsectfully is somehow the way to promote science?’ 
Wow, a known scientist just whips out the false dichotomy like it was somehow rational or something.
 
Myers, why don’t you just admit you like being a bigot, and drop all the fallacious rationalizatons.  Embrace the truth.  Open your mind to the fact that you are filled with hate.  Everyone else knows it; join the club.

I am another former Pharyngula reader who got tired of PZ’s disdain for anyone who isn’t PZ.

I’m fine with taking Andy’s apology at face value; whatever our opinion of his sincerity, I think we should take this opportunity to demonstrate that atheists are not the ogres he (and many others) imagine. Demonstrate that we’re more magnanimous and (by definition) more reasonable than his fellow Christians. Let’s take one of the Bible’s bits of useful advice and repay his initial animosity with kindness. If we really want to persuade people that they’re wrong about us, we need show that we’re better than we’re perceived.In short, let’s be Friendly Atheists. It works.

Did you ever read MLK Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail?  There aren’t any non-combatants in the culture war.  There’s the tip of the iceberg, the obvious opponents screaming obscenities and spraying pepper spray and using firehoses against children, and then there’s the rest of society, those who provide the inertia, the resistance to positive change, who prefer the absence of tension, to the presence of justice.

He discriminated based on religious grounds as soon as he said ‘christian business’.  That’s all that’s needed to make it unlawful discrimination.

Byeeeee.

So he wrote an apology to appear sorry, and to save his business.

And we accept the apology to appear forgiving.

Can we not do anything that’s real anymore?

When there are two ways of interpreting something I think that it is better to choose the good way rather than the bad way.  I’m not interested in keeping score of how many slights I receive.  If someone is big enough to acknowledge an error and offers an apology then I am going take it as sincere until such time as I am shown to be wrong.

I, of course, never make mistakes or speak out of turn (riiiight) but if I did I would hope that people would extend to me the same courtesy.

PZ Myers is like the Fred Phelps of atheism.

No, what he wants is to ride around on his highest of horses and pretend that he’s never made a mistake. PZ LOVES being indignant. This is just one in a series of incidents that he has seized on to pretend that he is better than everyone else.

Normal people accept apologies and move on with their lives, but not PZ. He wants “examples” to be made.

File a suit or cram it. There was nothing illegal. If you think otherwise then get the lawyers involved. Pretending that “Skepticon attendee” is a religion is just dumb.

He made it about religion.

PZ Phelps

the irony is burning my eyes!

I have no clue what you muggles have against PZ.
He’s an all-around cool and nice guy.

“Others may accept his apology. I don’t.  Until he accepts that non-Christians can freely mock Chirstianity, it’s a not-apology.” – P Z Miserly

I didn’t attend Skepticon so the guy never banned me, and therefore he doesn’t owe me an apology.     That’s is he didn’t ban atheists in general.  Just the participants from Skepticon, and only the ones that showed up for a ten minute period if you are to believe him.   Which was likely a ban on any christians, jews, or muslims who were in attendance at Skepticon.  

So perhaps a couple people are actually due a real apology.   Maybe the guy who took the photo, and anyone who saw the sign and left without going in.

The set of people owed an apology is very unlikely to include P Z Myers so who cares whether he accepts it or not.    The guy has got a big chip on his shoulder to say the least.   He’s truly unforgiving.    His ultimatum is ridiculous.     How does he even know what the guy accepts or doesn’t about mocking Christianity.   Since he took down the sign immediately that is good evidence he accepts the right to mock.

Note that had I been turned away I would certainly accept this apology, and I’m with Hemant 100% on his response.

Does this sound like a nice guy.   I mistakenly thought he had removed an article and posted a comment claiming that.  He got all indignant about it said he’d ban me unless I proved it.  I searched again, found the article and wrote, oops my mistake I missed it somehow.   Then he banned me.  Yep, that trivial.  If for the claimed reasons he’s a pretty petty fellow.

 I posted this in reply to Morva Ádám.   Somehow it ended up at the bottom with a double post.

Please tell me you are a child borrowing Mummy’s computer. Surely a grown-up wouldn’t  call somebody a muggle.

Why don’t you report him?  Or have you?

“The owner excluded people from his business based on his perception that they were non-believers in christianity.”

Absolutely not.    It is pretty clear at this point that he wrote that Skepticon attendees were “not welcome” because he didn’t like his beliefs mocked.    That was the point of putting “Christian Business”.   It obviously to point out that he is of the group that he felt was being mocked.

It didn’t say “No Atheists” it said “Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian Business”.   Skepticon, the group he just saw mocking his own beliefs, which he probably took as mocking Christians.  

Pretty sure you are not up on mocking gays, right.  Suppose a gay owned the store, went to Skepticon, and saw a play mocking homosexuals titled “Brokeass Mt”.    Would you have the same reaction to a sign put up in the heat of the moment that read, “Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Gay Business”?

Skepticism and science have long played the game of “working with” the
stronger “religious” element, and surrendering to it. The same could be
said about working people, versus corporations. Having finally gotten past his disertations, later retracted, on “German Culture”, and the, “wonders of Shoepansomething or other and Kant”, I finally got into some of the more interesting stuff by Nietzsche, I find myself looking at the, “He apologized”, view in this matter,  in light of one of the bits I just read:

“Of the right of the weaker – If one party, a city under siege, for example, submits under certain conditions to a greater power, its reciprocal condition is that this first party can destroy itself, burn the city, and thus make the power suffer a great loss. Thus there is a kind of equalization, on the basis of which rights can be established. …”

Mind, just refusing the do what they want, so long as the power in question allows itself to be bound by at least the “appearance” of civility, and thus making self destruction an unnecessary element, is usually sufficient in modern times. And, one need not “burn the city”, if one makes it equally unusable for all parties. I present this argument in challenge to those that presume both to respect an apology given as means of repentance, not change opinion, and to the myriad clowns, on other discussion threads, who try to make similar arguments against the “inconvenience”, “disturbance”, or “offense” of others who belong the those in power, by those without, or having less, of it, in every instance, be it religious, political, economic, etc. If there is no reciprocal offense possible, they can be no basis to establish rights for either party. On the contrary, where such reciprocation of offenses is not possible, what one is left with is dictates from the powerful, and destruction as the only option from those apposing, at which point, we are right back with the “uncivilized” version that Nietzsche describes.

Alex mentioning Stockholm Syndrome resonates as I read all these posts lapping up the crumbs that the Christian majority deigns to feed you.  You’re mistaking the bare minimum of tolerance for kindness.

It’s my favorite pagan holiday also.   They ruin it with all this Christ stuff.

Self loathing?   Nothing in that comment indicates self loathing.     Besides Denis, atheism is a lack of belief.   One can loath other atheists without it having anything to do with oneself.    I loath the compulsory communists who killed over one hundred million people.   I happen to share their lack of belief in Leprechans.    That doesn’t make me self loathing.   They also happen to lack a belief in god, and are therefore atheists.   I loath them for their beliefs, not what they don’t believe.

His initial reaction was to take down the sign.

He didn’t “exclude them on religious grounds”.   His sign in fact included any Christians who were at the Skepticon conference also.   They weren’t welcome either.

the irony is that all your comments on this tread seem to be rabid anti PZ rants about how PZ is rabid and ranty.

I don’t know whether you are a bigot, I have no reason to suspect you hate anyone other than PZ

No more so than identifying your business as a “Black Business” .   As in, “No KKK allowed in this  ‘Black Business'”

Who claimed he was being kind?  

About as necessary as  the concept of God.

Why is that ironic?  Ironic means unexpected.   Do you expect comments pointing out that someone is bigoted to be flowery and sweet?  

How do you point out a bigot without flagging your supposed “irony” meter?   

“I don’t know whether you are a bigot, I have no reason to suspect you hate anyone other than PZ.”

Thank you.

FTR, I don’t even hate bigots like PZ or Fred Phelps, though I must admit often I must resist the temptation.  However, I still think they both need to be called out, often.

That was incredible. Thanks, Buffy.

There’s nothing wrong with a mock sermon, but it sounds out of place at a skepticism conference (though perfectly acceptable at an atheism conference). PZ Myers may approve, but neither Martin Gardner nor Carl Sagan would have, and Phil Plait probably wouldn’t either.

Whoever booked Sam Singleton made it about religion.

Have you honestly never done anything in the heat of anger that you later realised was wrong and deeply regretted? If not, you’re either a Vulcan or haven’t lived.

You are making a generalization out of a specific case.  Apologies in and of themselves are not worthless, this particular non-apology is.

What if his sign had truly said “NAACP attendees are not welcome at my White business.”

Then, once his business was being destroyed by non-violent attack, he wrote a letter of apology that included: “I apologize for putting up the sign, it was inexcusable behavior, but I don’t apologize for my beliefs.”

My issue with this is that people seem to be willing to accept this non-apology as contrition that the sentiment that caused the action is wrong, and I don’t see that at all.  I see him trying to save his business while keeping intact his “belief” that others have no right to mock his inherently mockable beliefs.

Not once did he apologize for breaking the law.  For saying that it is unacceptable for a businessman to bring religious discrimination into a public place of business.  Not once did he say that he was sorry for hating non-christians simply for the fact that they did not hold reverent what he does.  

He said he was sorry for saying it out loud.

Maturity is not about burying your head in the sand when you are discriminated against by a bigot.  Saying “grow up and I’m taking my ball and going home,” does not demonstrate maturity.

To be fair, that’s censureship rather than censorship.

You don’t get it. HIS BELIEFS were, apparently MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR RIGHTS.

His “apology” came about ONLY because his business took a nosedive, ratings-wise. NOT because he’s genuinely sorry for being a bigoted fuck-wit with a giant hard-on for Jesus.

Of course he did. He’s a troll.

His feelings were more important than your rights. I don’t know you, but I’m willing to bet that when you’re pissed off (rightly or wrongly), your feelings are more important than anyone else, too.

Let he who has never mouthed off while angry cast the first stone.

The difference: This guy apologized with surprisingly good grace, given the wave of denunciation he received. I have yet to see PZ display anything similar in the face of criticism.

I felt friendly, indeed admiring, toward PZ for a long time; but his ego and vitriol got old. While atheism and skepticism certainly need fearless, hard-hitting champions, contemptuous sneering is not an appropriate or effective tactic in every situation.

“Okay; so previously, you were to the point of telling us all to bugger off because you were so offended. Now, you’re wrong. What happened between these two states? What life-changing thing caused this shift? “Exactly this. If you apologize just because lots of people complain, then it’s not worth a pinch of shit. The real question is why does this person now believe it’s wrong?

What?  His initial reaction was to put the sign up.  After whatever time period and whether it was his own thinking or intervention from others (employees or business partners) he then removed the sign. 

I think you have to evaluate his actions in the context of his society and upbringing. I suspect he’s always been a Christian, always bought that the “other” is evil without ever having met any — and what would lead you to question that, if you’re comfortable in your faith. He saw something that shocked his sheltered sensibilities and had an emotional reaction. Given time to reflect, he backed off, and wrote a sincere apology.

The thing that make me feel certain that this apology is sincere is the fact he invites us into his head, to see things from his perspective. It would seem that he spent some time doing the converse, attempting — although it’s surely difficult for him — to see things from the conference goers’ perspective.

Don’t berate him for taking a small step in the right direction — of openness to others’ beliefs — because it’s a damned hard step to take when it goes against everything you’ve ever been led to believe.

And as to whether he had financial motivation, based on bad reviews — maybe so, but I don’t think it matters.  This is not a pro forma apology. This is the real deal.

I’m going to attempt to summarise this for my own clarity of thought:Local business owner sees something done by a group he is unfamiliar with that shocks him.He disapproves and bans the group from his shop.He changes his mind after calming down and apologises for his overreaction.The group see a photo of the sign and post it online.The group and affiliates are outraged and respond by posting social commentary about the business.The business owner responds with a stronger apology.Lots of sceptics argue about whether an apology is sufficient restitution for the dickish sign.Is that about it because I am hard pressed to understand the depth of outrage that this story has generated.  That’s a statement of my own ignorance rather than a judgement on those who are angry.I was not significantly hurt by his actions.  I got a bit righteously indignant at the slur but to be honest it is what I expect from Christians so it just adds to the bubbling anger I feel towards them as a group.  Yet another example of why Christianity is a bad thing for society.  I’m not going to go to his shop.  Ever.  I’d have to go halfway round the world for a start so that’s hardly an issue for me.  My actions remain unchanged.  His apology took a little of my righteous indignation away.  I thought it was well intended (if perhaps a little self serving) and I’m big enough to let it go at that.What I find interesting and significant about this is that my (English) righteous indignation is clearly much weaker than my American cousins fury at his actions.  I think that this is because nobody cares that I’m an atheist.  My family are all atheists, back and forward a generation, and the vast majority of my friends are also atheists or disinterested agnostics (apatheists).  Those religious people that I know either don’t care that I’m an atheist, respect my right to disagree with them or are just plain too embarrassed of their faith to speak up.  My career is completely unaffected by my lack of gods too.  Nobody has ever even brought up the subject at work apart from boiler room bigotry at “those Muslims” that someone was repeating from a red top tabloid.My education and the education of my children is unaffected by religion.  True we have mandatory religious assembly in schools but they haven’t changed since I was a pupil and I didn’t know that they were supposed to be religious then.  Instead they are all about school business.  Religious education (or ethics and philosophy as it has been rebranded) truly does cover world religions.  My youngest is comparing a prominent Catholic with a prominent Muslim for his latest E&P homework.  Scientists aren’t much restricted in their research by religious sensibilities unless you happen to be an internationally renowned biologist and writer who makes a career of talking about atheism.It’s true that there are filthy child molesting priests still plying their wicked trade and still protected by the privilege afforded to the Bishop of Rome but he’s openly mocked and held in low regard.  I don’t even know any Catholics who would think of defending their church.It is true that we have unelected Lords Spiritual in our legislature but these ineffectual old boys do very little but cream some expenses from hard working tax payers like me.  It’s no worse that the 650 parasites who sit in the Lower House do and hardly much to do with religion at all.  It annoys me true but I am so furious with politics in general that I can barely summon up the additional energy to warrant anger against a few well meaning but deluded old duffers.  They’re rather comedic when you think about them, a bit like the Queen and her corgis. I haven’t lived with religion.  Ever.  This is all very different from what it must be like in the United States of Jesusland where atheists are an untrusted, even despised, minority, where civil rights are stomped all over by greedy and insensitive churches and bigoted citizens who can barely conceive of life without some sort of deity.  It must be horrible that businesses can and do deny atheists services and access to goods on nothing more than that they have to get up on a Sunday to apologise to a magic man in the sky for being human.  I acknowledge my privilege and understand the anger at the GelatoGuy.  He probably doesn’t get it either and he certainly has a lot more invested in it that I do.It’s fine to teach somebody that they are wrong and to explain why what they did was wrong.  If the apology isn’t enough then that’s probably because he just doesn’t understand why it isn’t enough.  Nor can he make up for a lifetime of being treated like a second class citizen because his myths aren’t our myths.  He’s the one with the privilege and he has made a step to acknowledge that.  I think he should get a bit of credit for that even if he has some way to go.

This comment is much longer than I intended.  Sorry.  

actually, Christians can’t stand us because we
1. EXIST
2. Don’t believe what they believe
3. THink we worship Satan

And since when does a billboard = whining? If anyone’s whining it’ the christians who get butthurt about a freakin’ sign on a highway

his actions of taking the sign DOWN and making an apology.  And listening to people.  Because we FORGET most people have little or no contact with atheists (so far as they know)  I love Sam and his performance but if I didn’t KNOW it was a performance…and know Sam… I would be “oh my gawd, who are these people?”  It’s comedy, but you have to know it’s comedy….his action wasn’t unexpected but his taking it down when he cooled down in 10 minutes…was unexpected and a win.  If someone had been lap dancing a buddha in front of an Asian grocery story, or dressed as an Indian and singing dirty versions of native american sacred songs in front of a reservation… I expect they would have gone “well that’s scaring me” and put up a sign also….but he TOOK IT DOWN AND APOLOGIZED, sincere or not it’s a WIN.

ouch Alex, the HATE THE HATE!!!  Alex sounds like she was trained in the same churches that the intolerant believers she is so angry about belong to.  Only like so many atheists she has simply joined the “Church of No God” with their zero tolerance level that most churches has.  Thing is.. critical thinkers and atheists are different.  Most of the ones I know, even the supposedly hateful Richard Dawkins, go about how they convert in a much more intellectual and engaging manner.  Intellect, reason, engagement, and indeed that one thing missing from most religions…tolerance and reason instead of EMOTION EMOTION EMOTION is what makes being an atheist and a critical thinker different…and why in the end we don’t need to sink to their level to win.  Let’s not adopt the hate and anger policy of the church, let’s keep the emotions at bay and with the knowledge that humans are capable of making mistakes and learning from them, keep the “lack of faith” going.  We don’t need this guys life story.  But he will never ever put up a sign like that again and other people have learned.  You don’t need to put the guy out of business (and yes LOTS and LOTS of hate email directed to this guys restaurant site and well as endless hate twitters and fb posts…which are STILL going on…thanks to people like Alex.).  Alex, you are the reason WWI started, because you can never ever just say “oh ok, that’s reasonable”.  No you want the “other person” to SUFFER and SUFFER MORE and it would never be enough for you.  The hate to this man continues far past the point of doing anything but harm to the atheist movement.  

oh boy… and so NOT learning… how about Ghandi?  If you can’t read any of his books, rent the movie dude.  You want to be a victim too hard.  Real victimization ends when you stop accepting yourself as a victim and start making real efforts to educate and change minds.  Going arond “I’m a victim I’m a victim!” and getting all emotional… rent the damn movie dude.  

it didn’t say NO CHRISTIANS.  stop trying to make yourself a victim!  Geez… what would you consider a victory…when someone burns down the store?

so what do you want?  Kowtow?  I think not, I think this was a great success.  why can’t you celebrate it for what it is?  TEN MINUTES!  that’s great it didn’t stay up!  you were KICKED?  You mean like the OWS people are being kicked and pepper sprayed?  Like the civil rights movement workers were kicked and pepper sprayed?  You are equating this with that?  So no matter what the motivation, he took it down.  Like I said if a store owner in the South had taken it down and issued an apology Martin Luther King would have been in there shaking the guys hand.  Jonathan Daniels is a civil rights worker (white) who went to buy some sodas at a racist store in the South. HE WAS SHOT DEAD.  and NO ONE went to jail for it.  He was also an Episcopalian seminary student.  So dont give me this is like being “kicked”.  A ten minute sign and an apology is no way equates to the REAL kicking people are suffering and have suffered in the name of civil rights for all.  

and that has hurt you personally how?  Men will still think women drivers are horrible.  People will still look sideways at a woman in a head scarf just shopping but obviously Muslim.  People won’t go to a doctor that isn’t a Christian.  Christians will still have their homes fire bombed in Asia… it’s a whole world of hate and the one strong point of Atheism is that we don’t have those excuses for hate.  We have reason on our side.  We’re different.  Or not.  Because some people can’t get it’s never goign to be FAIR, but being right the average atheists can live a happier and more accepting life than any religious person can.  “You believe in a talking kangaroo as your god?  Whatever!  I don’t believe in anything!  And I can also work with that dude that believes a giant pea pod is his personal savior….whatever, because I THINK”

so rather than slamming this guys business personally .. one could take it to court.  But wait that would require getting up from behind the keyboard!

no he’s not a troll, unles you define troll as “anyone that does not agree with me 100%”

10 MINTUES!  that’s pretty darn quick.  I’ll take 10 minutes rather than leaving it up for the entire conference until people were protesting outside his store.  TEN MINUTES!  Heck atheists can get over this and it’s been DAYS.

but what Sam was doing FELT like it was bigoted to this guys beliefs.  And someone explained it was a comic performance.  I mean, if it had been people in blackface in front of a black owned store….and they were just “making fun” … no one would have blamed the guy for the sign.  The weird part is he took it down so fast.

maturity is in knowing when to say “enough” and “I can stop hitting back again and again and again”.  It’s knowing when to end the hate on your side and using our intelligence to talk to this guy and stop “guessing” and “I KNOW WHAT THIS IS” stuff.  It’s not “I get the last word in and I WIN” it’s “let’s use this as a lesson, perhaps to educate people including store owners”  What do we want the public lesson of this to be?  We are tolerant, we are big enough to accept an apology without crucifying this guy… and atheist react DIFFERENTLY than other groups, especially religious groups, because that’s what being a critical thinker is about.  We ARE different and that difference is what makes us successful in our lives and business and should be an example for others.  

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Taking it to court would require a law degree and either an appointment as a District Attorney or standing with a client.

I don’t have a law degree, and district attorneys around the country have been shown regularly to be biased against non-believers.  I don’t have a lot of money.  I work 70 hours a week, so the keyboard I would have to “[get] up from behind” is a mobile one.  I give what I can to the ACLU and the FFRF so that they will find someone with standing and take on these cases.

You make it sound like this store owner was forced to be exposed to this.

Andy walked into Skepticon, into a conference room, and saw this performance on private property that had been paid for by the people that were occupying it.

He witnessed a citizen of the U.S. exercising his first amendment rights to free speech.  He then proceeded to walk back to his public place of business and break the law by excluding a class of people from his public place of business.

It was not in front of his store, no one forced him to see it.  He didn’t ask any questions, he walked into a performance of his own volition, made his assumptions, and then proceeded to break the law.

Also, your example reverses a fact.  Non-believers, at least publicly declared ones, are not a majority in this country.  Christians are.  Your example is that of a Majority making fun of a minority.  Which, in any case, would have been perfectly legal as well, and the store owner would also have been breaking the law in your example.

Longer than you intended, but very well said.  Thank you.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations.

It was illegal, and we can’t sue, we have to get the government to file criminal charges.

Individuals can file civil suits if they believe that they have been discriminated against. Pretty straight forward. This was not discrimination that is actionable. Morons just keep running their mouths because they want to feel like victims.

“race, color, religion or national origin”

Which of those categories does “Skepticon Attendee” fall under?

Land around highways is private property? LOL. That’s a new one…Well, nothing right gets done in this country without “complaints”. I guess you can say women were “complaining” for equal rights……

so… you were discriminated against… and you blame someone other than the person who discriminated against you… and you endorsed their bigotry by saying “but we’re the quiet doormat types”?

I just think you are spwing bile… about how you think PZ is spewing bile.

I have never seen this vitriol. It’s like bigfoot to me. People say they’ve seen it, and have grainy photos of what might be some leafs…

Hi, Hemant.  I spoke to him personally at his restaurant today and I’m working on the article for God Discussion.  After speaking to him face to face, I agree and truly feel that his apology was heartfelt and sincere, despite the fact that he feels no one’s views should be mocked.  He’s not doing it just to save his business either.  I saw it in his face at least once, that he is sorry for what he did.

Ah, perhaps you should really place a bucket to prevent staining with such dripping sarcasm.

My statement that I did not have a law degree did not have any bearing on the fact that I have a basic understanding of the law.  It simply means that I did not pay $150,000 so that I could take the bar exam and then stand before a judge and argue a case.  It has zero relevance to my understanding and interpretation of what I believe the intent of the law and legal procedure is.

I also notice that you had no argument to counter me with after your assumptions proved incorrect.

I don’t think he should be held accountable for his thoughts.  As I have said previously, the only objection I have is that he thinks his so-called apology fixes anything.  He apologizes for his action, but says that it is perfectly ok to hold that kind of bigotry as long as you don’t talk about it.

I don’t think it is.

What you think in your mind is yours and no one should hold you accountable for fleeting thoughts. However, defending your right to be a bigot in your mind while saying that acting on that bigotry was totally wrong, doesn’t cut it for me.

If he is really an Episcopal seminary student, I would expect him to have had more of a sense of humor himself. The Episcopalians aren’t exactly fundamentalists, in general.

And so, since we critical thinkers are JUST THE SAME AS THE HATE FILLED RELIGIOUS… we must respond with HATE and anger and not take an honest apology because gosh knows this is the WORST thing happening right now to atheists…relgious tactics will not work with atheism or critical thinking.  THINKING will  … remember, you QUIT the church, why hold on to anything they taught you?

…and the point will be WHAT?  You can ASK, and you can file a private civil suit.  But who is going to win the battle in the minds of the public.  The “oh wow, the atheists accepted my apology and were very nice about it.” or the headline “ATHEISTS TARGET SMALL BUSINESS OWNER DESPITE APOLOGY, DEMAND LARGE CASH SETTLEMENT THAT WILL PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS!”

don’t talk to me, talk to the statistics.   And join the party dude.  Women Jews Muslims Blacks the disabled Catholics, non Catholics, Buddhists, Quakers, the Amish, gays, the over weight, the homeless, poor people… the list goes on and on and on and on….get in line and do the work that needs to be done that these other groups have. They just don’t whine VICTIM, they take control and ARE the change theywant.  Penn Jilette talked about the “Whiner victim mentality” and if anyone is a militant atheist he is.  But then again he DOES stuff…not tippy tappy as a key board activist.

ummmm, he’s supposed to have a sense of humor that he was shot dead?  While attempting to buy a soda at a store owned by a racist?  (should be noted he was a white student from New Hampshire…the nice thing is that all the leaders of the Civil Rights movement came to bring his body home and give thanks).  I dont see quite what he would have to laugh about here… “sense of humor” well yeah I guess it was funny the guy got off with shooting him….

Yes, in Houston Texas a church bought up PRIVATE property near highways.  Lots.  And put up GIANT CROSSES.  It’s legal.  A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T LIKE IT!  But, it’s legal.  Atheists could do the same thing, and believe it or not courts could do nothing about it (giant A’s I guess?).  Now would people complain?  you betcha!  One atheist group is trying to raise money to do just that.. put up a good billboard.  yes it is true, you can buy property near freeways  (why would that be odd?)  and you can put up whatever you want.  

whoa, defedning him?  so what would youdo? so not only are youdictating his behavior, youare dictating the behavior of other atheists?  Yousound like partof the “fewer but better atheist”club.  Yep, hate whoI hate or youaren’t one of US! Yikes!  

call you state atheist group.  they tend to have a lot of lawyers….use the system.  it isn’t always skewed against atheists.

As I said elsewhere, exactly what I was advocating.

So I should just shut up and go with the flow and accept his apology when I think it is wrong? I won’t change my opinion to win a pr war. That’s hypocrisy.

I don’t believe that is relevant.  I can be offended at someone’s actions that I hear about without ever witnessing them.  I can also forgive them when they apologise.