An Update on GelatoGate

1) I <3 you guys
2) I <3 adding the '-gate' suffix to the end of words

I get the sense that Andy didn’t realize he was stepping on anybody’s rights. He just thought he was expressing his opinion much in the same way Sam Singleton was expressing his onstage. Obviously, Andy was wrong. I don’t expect him to understand what atheists have to deal with on a regular basis just yet, but I think he did pick up on the idea that discriminating against a group of people, be they the attendees of Skepticon or anyone else, was not the right thing to do. He doesn’t have to agree with us, and I don’t know why people want to hold him to the same standards they would a politician. All I want from him is an expectation that he will separate his personal beliefs from his business life, at least at the counter. I have confidence that he now knows better how to do that.

I don’t know why people want to hold him to the same standards they would a politician

I’m not sure what you mean by this Hemant. I have a sense I may disagree with the sentiment, but without knowing quite what you mean, I can’t be sure. Can you elaborate?

Apparently saying “I think this guy is full of it” is now equal to making threats of violence against them.

Classy.

JT

       Totus est venia. Pax.

Only problem with this is that the atheist who set this off…Sam Singleton…IS insulting.

Deliberately.

And to Provoke

He got what you all wanted, you whining hypocrites.

I left this on PZ’s blog on the dangers of being nice in every situation… 
***
As an accused atheist in a child custody situation, sometimes I
wonder if stereotyping is worsened by “strong atheists” like Brother
Sam. But when you think about it, stereotyping is done by people too
intellectually lazy or just plain prejudiced. Being nice has to be
natural, appropriate response to a given situation. I am often
described as “nice”, and if in a rare moment of frustration I let a cuss
word slip some people are quick to highlight it as if I have some sort
of swearing habit.

I think of the atheist movement that way too. You can obsess on
being nice walk on pins and needles hoping to be palatable and thus
accepted by everyone or you can realize that a few people will never
make an effort to get to know you. Its like the circus trick trying to
keep plates spinning perfectly balanced. You could keep them spinning
beautifully and perfectly for days. The minute one inevitably falls,
that’s what is remembered. Why should we be magnanimous until it hurts
to those very few people who we never were going to impress, and
actively want to see us fail in order to bolster their worldview and
protect their privileges?
***

I would forgive him if he made an honest effort to learn more about atheists rather than stereotype. (He did say that no atheist not just Brother Sam was welcome in his business) My post was more toward atheists who think it is Brother Sam’s fault rather than the businessman’s.

So you don’t think he understood that discriminating against a group of people is wrong before this blew up on him?

Doesn’t that bother you a little?

What Rod Chlebek said.  

I’d be really seriously annoyed IF there were a sign saying my group wasn’t welcome in a store AND IF the owner didn’t come to his senses and take it down AND IF he doubled down and continued to discriminate and refused to apologize.  

And I’d be seriously amazed IF the owner took the sign down and apologized directly to Sam Singleton and told us he had actually been thinking about just dumping the whole belief thing… but that’d be practically a miracle and I don’t believe in miracles.  Instead what actually happened is the owner did something stupid, recognized it as such, took the sign down, and apologized to the targeted community.  A bit of progress.  Seriously, what else can we ask for?  

Now I want to try “gelato”.  At least if it comes in chocolate.

The Civil Rights act says nothing about “lack of religious beliefs”.

But, given your argument, atheism is then…in a legal context…a religion.

Quit trying to have it both ways.

The shop owner has free speech rights too

Just like the jerk Sam Singleton does.

And atheism is obviously a religion. 

And you have tried to smear this small time shop owner all around the country.

And you wonder why the majority of people don’t trust you.

By posting a sign excluding certain people from his business he wasn’t exercising his right to free speech.  He was violating the civil right to public accommodation of the people he was excluding. 

Atheism is not a religion, however, it is treated as a religious STANCE for purposes of civil rights, etc.  Are you seriously trying to argue that atheists have NO rights?  That’s just absurd!

Now, go draw Mohammed.  Wow, you’re deliberately provoking someone.  What you’re trying to do is suppress speech that you happen to find offensive.  If you want to play that game then I want to suppress every xian preacher because I find much of what THEY say to be vile, offensive and morally reprehensible. 

Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
Yes, I know this is a Title II issue, not a Title VII issue.  But if you think the broad definition of ‘religion’ only applies to employment, then you’re just unintentionally obtuse, as opposed to intentionally obtuse.  Can’t help you there.

I would agree 100%.  There was an initial fervor on Reddit to write this guy wonderful letters saying what a great guy he is, and how they’ll come and give him a bunch of extra business because he’s just SOO wonderful.  Just to clarify- I think it’s good that he’s not doing it any more, some progress is better than none, I just don’t see why I should apologize to the bigot who got caught.

By your logic, a blank word document would be an essay.

If that’s what they mean by it, you have to admit they do have a point.

 Even on this blog, there are plenty of people who seem to think that this guy’s motives are suspect because of his religion, which makes him incapable of seeing through his privilege. Intellectually lazy stereotyping goes both ways.

Having said that, remember that this guy at least had a reason, even if he didn’t have an excuse: he wrote the sign while he was (rightly or wrongly) completely pissed off. We’ve all been there. Everyone is intellectually lazy when they’re in that state.

I know exactly how this guy feels. Anyone who has mouthed off in the heat of the moment knows exactly how he feels. I wouldn’t want to be judged by what I say in moments like that and, according to the secular Golden Rule, I must extend that courtesy to others if they wish me to.

Whether or not atheism is a “religion” in common use of the term (as opposed to legal) is irrelevant.  Call it a religion if you like.  Humanism — which is *not* a “blank CD” — could be seen as a sort of religion, I suppose.

I couldn’t care less.  It’s just a word.  Call it a religion if it makes it easier for you to keep calm and treat people with love as opposed to spite.  It changes nothing about what either atheism or humanism are.

Usually people who get passionate that “atheism is a religion” are only interested in discrediting evolution, etc, but saying “see!  it’s not science, it’s religion!” and thereby undermine the influence of the most highly educated social classes.

That’s completely separate from the issue at hand.  If you are motivated by anti-scientific-establishment concerns, you should be up front about it.  If you aren’t, you should drop the issue because it doesn’t matter at all.

Because he’s not necessarily a bigot.

The satire would have been quite hurtful to someone who believed that church services are sincere and full of value.  Afterall, it didn’t even attempt to be truthful and represent both sides of what church is about.

He probably didn’t even think that he was banning “atheists” from his store.  Just *those* disrespectful jerks down the street.

I don’t think he did the right thing.  But I do think he was justified in being miffed.  It must have been very hard for him to apologize so completely without adding any jabs like “Yes, I’m sorry — but to be fair, Skepticon owes me an apology too!”

tl;dr: I don’t think he’s a bigot.  I think he’s human.  And he gets angry when he feels misrepresented.  Just like we skeptics do — and we do it all the goddam time (even if we don’t always make a shop-window mistake while we’re steaming).

Well, I don’t see how reading from the Bible is something that Christians should be offended at.  To be fair, I’d be offended at someone reading the Bible, but that has more to do with the rape, murder and genocide more than “Gosh, those people were cursing!”

As an aside, he was also one of the businesses that was offering discounts to people from Skepticon, he had plenty of time to find out about what it was in advance. Putting up a sign saying you’re not welcome when he had *advertised* that people should come to his store seems absurd.

2000a. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

(a)
Equal access

“All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as
defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Note how the law starts: “ALL”.

A patron does not need to be a member of a protected class (i.e. race, color, religion, or national origin) in order to be protected as the word “ALL” covers everyone.

I see no reason to accept his apology, skepticon being okay with it is no reason for me to think its now okay.

If his sign had “Jewish” rather than “Atheist” then the situation would be different, as he could fully expect to end up in court for either illegal discrimination or perpetrating a hate crime.

I wasn’t involved at all, heck I live in a different country (France).

I am American, and I grew up in America most of my life, and I totally understand where American Atheists (such as myself) come off being very upset and pissed off about the way we are treated.

Thing is: a lot of “Atheist Evangelism” lately is also trying to be positive – showing that we’re normal people, not the devil, and we aren’t to be feared. We can be kind and moral like anyone else (at least that’s what it seems to me we’re trying to get across a lot of times with the bus ads etc…)

I know that this guy did wrong, and I’m absolutely sensitive to the situation if he had written, say “No Jews Allowed” or “No Blacks Allowed” or something like that. To me, it’s absolutely comparable.

The problem, however, is that he did apologize – twice now. And before he did, he did talk to some people from our community who explained things to him and probably cooled him down.

Yes, it’s stupid for him to get offended, and he probably realized that. Maybe he even realized that he acted in a hugely bigoted way. My guess is: at least now he has a bit more than a clue.

If he’s trying to reach out and apologize, and even keep talking to us, why not put down our war shields and forgive him? First, it’s the right thing to do: Staying mad at him will only make him resentful of us when, in his mind, he’s tried to correct a wrong. It’s not gonna make him our friend or even understand us.

Second: It’s a nice way to show that we *are* humanists, ethical, and moral people. We can forgive just like any Christian, Buddhist, or other loony toons religiously affiliated person. In fact, we can forgive even more because we aren’t required to loathe anyone without forgiveness or exception based on bronze-aged mentalities which we are commanded to make our own and justify.

The fact is, it’s a good time to show that we can be *more* forgiving than others, and understanding, and make a show of it.

I say we should forgive him, because it’s not only in his benefit and won’t make him a lifetime enemy, but it’s also beneficial to our cause. It will be a nice example. Perhaps it will change a lot of people’s minds when they hear of it. What better way than that to show that we’re good people without the bible? It sure is more effective than a bus or billboard ad.

Remember: There are still a ton of people alive today who literally hated blacks in the south because of the way they were brought up. They were incredibly irrational and even evil in their actions. However, they learned from their mistakes. It is possible, little by little, to change – to say that a community is not the absolute evil that you thought it was. One has to give people the change and we humanist atheists should lead the way in many of these issues.

I say forgive, and even maintain ties with him and his community. Show them that we aren’t ogres; that we’re moral; that we’re forgiving; and we do it all without god or holy texts. We do it out of humanity’s sake, and that they should understand that and try it as well sometime.

The sign didn’t say “no atheists”, it said “no con-goers”.

That’s an enormous difference, legally speaking.

Since all this has been going on I’ve heard a lot of people comparing it to their own experiences that led them to drop religion because it was making them act like nasty people.

Just saying.

um…unless he’s discriminating against a protected class, he can legally exclude people from his business. 

Seriously, the protections you speak of is not a blanket protection for every and any group. He can say “you have in formalwear to get service here” and guess what: if you aren’t dressed appropriately, he can deny you service. Legally.

He can deny service to people with children. He can deny service to people with pets. Legally.

He can’t deny service based on a small number of protected classes, religion being one of them. But he didn’t say “atheists”. He was denying, (FOR TEN WHOLE MINUTES and even then not really) service to CONVENTION GOERS.

“Skepticon attendees” are not a protected class. 

now, how does that apply to the explicitly labeled “skepticon attendees”. 

Oh like theists have any rights.

Um, the sign read, “Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian Business.” The word “atheist” is nowhere on the sign, so simply switching out “Jewish” for “atheist” wouldn’t work.

He barred convention goers based on their religious beliefs – or lack thereof. Period. That he added “in my Christian business” is a dead giveaway.

However, Isilzha is completely overreacting. He made a bad decision in the heat of the moment and he saw that he was wrong. No need to drag this out any further.

Put away your Latin phrases book, stupid. 
You’re not fooling anyone.

I love all these internet ninny’s who are screaming that what the guy did was “unforgivable”, and we need to take steps to shut his business down.

First off, all of you look like just a bunch of petty, self-absorbed internet bullies. 

And secondly… Fuck you! I’ve lived in the south. I’ve seen ACTUAL discrimination. Actual, bigotry, genuinely mean people, and hatred that lasts for generations. This guy did (and is) none of that. I know it’s hard to believe, with the terrible things this guy apparently did to you by having to hear about it over the internet but ya’ll got white people problems (and yes I’m white so fuck you for not knowing the hip parlance of the time). I know a lot of you are trying real hard to nail yourself to your atheistic crosses, and just like xtians, can’t wait to be “persecuted” against, take offense too something, and get to go on your self justified blood war against someone you don’t know for the pettiest of reasons, but get a grip douche bags and go learn what ACTUAL bigotry looks like. Maybe then you’ll learn to tell when it really happens.

Mike the Mad Biologist has a photo on his blog that made me think of Gelatogate.  😎

He singled out a group and excluded him from his “christian business.’  The exclusion was GROUNDED on religion.  That is what makes it an illegal sign and a violation of others’ civil rights.

But Skepticon didn’t exclude anyone.  Andy could have attended the entire conference if he wanted.  He could have talked to everyone about how offensive he found it.  HOWEVER, he could not have been DISRUPTIVE to the proceedings because then he could legally have been thrown out.  Also, no one he tried to talk to at the conference would have been obligated to stand around and listen to him rant. 

I’m not sure I even really understand what you mean.  Why should Skepticon even have to be concerned that their acts meet the approval of anyone except the people who would want to attend Skepticon.  I don’t think the Promise Keepers are too concerned about making sure their content is welcoming to women and atheists.

You can mouth off.  However, a business owner has legal obligations to not exclude people from his business based on religious grounds.  That he put up such a sign means he doesn’t understand those obligations.  He should recognize that and promise to take a class in civil rights issues for business owners.

But…you CAN’T exclude people from your business on the grounds of religion. 

which neither you nor anyone have yet to prove he did. He EXPLICITLY labeled “Skepticon attendees” as the excluded class. Not. A. Religion.

The fact he labeled his business as “Christian” is a tenuous link at best, but you’d need a hell of a lawyer to prove it. Especially considering the SIGN WAS ONLY UP FOR TEN FRIGGIN’ MINUTES. 

Ye gods, who was *actually* denied service?

no.

one.

So there’s no actual damage, there’s no actual standing. A rude sign? Maybe. But that’s not illegal. you have to actually discriminate against someone based on their religion, or lack thereof to be guilty of that. You have to commit the crime first. That never happened. 

“Minority Report” is still, as of yet, fiction.

Again, he EXCLUDED people on the grounds of religion.  That is illegal.  I realize there are people who want it to NOT be illegal and who want to have the right to exclude anyone for any reason.  However, under current law business owners have certain legal obligations they must uphold.  If they don’t want to do so, then they can close their business. 

It doesn’t matter.  Andy excluded based on religious grounds.  A sign just saying “Skepticon Not Welcomed” would actually make the situation different.  I don’t think the civil right’s violation would be as clear though I may argue that it was implied.  However, as soon as he added “christian business” to the sign he made the exclusion of an entire group of people based on religious grounds.  Under civil right’s law this is unlawful discrimination.

Again. Because you can’t read. “Skepticon NOT welcome”. Fact. Not debatable.

You cannot prove the “christian store” part as being illegal discrimination unless you choose to take him to court. If it means that much to you, good luck. 

But right now, you have nothing other than opinion to prove your assertion as to “christian business”

No, I would say that it never happens. It’s a breath of fresh air living in a country in which you can say you’re an Atheist and nobody looks at you weird.

I am American, however, and I’ve lived in the Northeast, South, Southwest, and West coast. I can tell you that I understand where the pissed off people are coming from, but it’s better to strive to be above that.

Sometimes, one should lead by example. I think this is such a case.

Here’s some black & white for ya:

2. It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, or to attempt
to refuse, withhold from or deny any other person, any of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place
of public accommodation, as defined in section 213.010 and this section, or to
segregate or discriminate against any such person in the use thereof on the
grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, or
disability.

Nonsense, he was pointing out his religion because that was what being mocked at Skepticon.   The specific group being excluded was Skepticon attendees and that could include anyone including Christians.

So you think a sign that says “No homophobes welcome in this gay business” would be excluding heterosexuals?   Nope sorry, doesn’t work.   The excluded group in this example is “homophobes”.   The term “gay business” is just a factual statement.  If the guy is christian and owns the store then it is a “christian business”.  So what?

Wrong.

Restating a false statement doesn’t make it correct.

Does “I <3 you guys" mean "I tiny penis  you guys", cause that's what it looks like.

I find the weirdest thing about
all this back and forth is how certain all the non-lawyers posting are about legal opinions. This
is a fantastic illustration of the difference between atheism and skepticism:
the later involves withholding opinion (or moderating your opinion) in
accordance with the evidence (which, on a technical matter, is clearly lacking
here). Since I am a scientist, and not a lawyer, I decided to actually write
the experts on accommodation law for a opinion. It is obviously extremely preliminary,
but I pass it on for interest. (I note as well that the connection between
Skepticon and religion/irreligion is further weakened–the ACLU would not know
this–by the response from Skepticon organizers to objections from scientific
skeptics last year that they were in fact an just an atheist convention, e.g., .)

**Note: This is an email sent to
me by the local chapter of the ACLU. It may not represent their official
opinion. It should be read as such.** 

“It may be a violation of state and federal
public accommodations laws, but — as you note — attending the convention is
not necessarily an act of religious faith or irreligion.  So, it may not
even be that.  I have not received any complaints from anyone who felt
discriminated against by this businessman’s practices, and I doubt we would get
involved in any case.

Doug Bonney

Chief Counsel & Legal
Director

ACLU of Kansas & Western
Missouri

Direct: (816) 994-3311”

As feminists are quick to point out, you don’t have to throw someone out to exclude them.

Interestingly, Andy sounds like exactly the sort of person who might have gotten something out of Skepticon were it a science and critical thinking convention rather than an atheism convention.

“It’s been an emotional roller coaster for me and my family…” I don’t much care.  Guy makes a mistake and apologises for it.  Fair enough.  However, it is a bit self absorbed to then claim some kind of emotional turmoil as a result of all the bad publicity about his own negative action.

I know you’re being snarky, but I should point out that it’s not a question of Andy’s rights. It’s a question of whether or not it’s okay to blame Andy for being human, especially considering how much we all enjoy pointing out that certain religions are quick to condemn people to eternal torture for being human.

Again you are equivocating and cherry picking. 

Let’s say hypothetically I was offended by something at a gay conference.   I am not entitled to discriminate against serving gay people at my hypothetical business. Even if a speaker openly mocked heterosexuals. I don’t claim to know what goes on at gay conferences never having been to one even if that was relevant to the point which it isn’t.

I thought I made my point clear: Andy’s actions weren’t excusable, but they were understandable. They are understandable because we’ve all been there.

If a conference came to my town, and I stumbled across them mocking something I held dear, it would annoy me. If, for some reason, I got angry enough, which could happen regardless of whether or not the anger is justified, chances are good I would say things that I would later honestly regret.

I hope I would have the presence of mind to avoid venting my catecholamine-fuelled “opinions” in a public arena, and to wait until I had a chance to calm down and look at things rationally before speaking to anyone else. But if I slipped, I hope everyone else would forgive me.

I understand his discontent was fueled by a single person, but by excluding all of Skepticon (and all attendees therein), with his sign, he made it about all attendees, not just that single person.  He inferred that that person represented the whole of the attendance and thus, those of a different religious belief BECAUSE he included “Christian business” on his sign.

Let me make this simple for you… no one is suing.  Hence, “legal” makes no difference for the majority of us reading. 

That said, he made a knee-jerk reaction to a silly religion-related issue.  The sign was intended to turn away anyone who didn’t agree with his religious beliefs.  That is evident by the “Christian business” part of the sign.

Given that, I would no longer go to his business because that knee-jerk reaction tells me how he feels about nonbelievers in his gut.

I’d feel the same way if he’d said “straight business” after going to a Pride event and finding it was about gays.  I’m not gay, but I would refuse to go to his business because of his prejudice.

I don’t have any intention of suing… but I’d prefer to give my money to another business that I KNOW is gay- or religion-friendly or that has no stance on the issues of which I’m aware than to knowingly give my money to a bigot.

It’s that simple.  Argue legalities all you want, but for me, it is a visceral reaction to his knee-jerk reaction.

You probably agree that, while trying not to deliberately
irritate one’s opponents, it usually can’t be avoided
as you “take them on” in court etc.

Those seeking equal rights should focus on getting them.
Changing minds is a bonus. 
 

we heart local businesses? Do people really say that?

If a Skepticon attendee went into his establishment without a convention badge on, how would anyone know whether they were 1.) a Skepticon attendee, or 2.) a non-theist?    Unless they were blatantly advertising their beliefs, most likely, they would have gotten served and Andy wouldn’t have been the wiser. 

Andy just made the sad leap in logic that “if one athiest makes fun of the bible and making fun of the bible is bad, then all atheists make fun of the bible and all atheists are bad.”  Andy just isn’t a good critical thinker and probably reacted to his emotions. 

Whether it was a violation of rights or not, you have to pick and choose your battles.  I don’t think this is a valid battle. 

A lawyer in Kansas City has been in touch with Andy about a Libel Suit involving Skepticon.

I kid you not.

Its a real possiblity.

I mights add that the jerk Sam Singleton set this off.

He is not helping atheism.

I wonder what Andy REALLY thinks of Atheists now?  What his family thinks of them?

If I were his kid, I would grow up hating atheists for what they are doing to my dad.

Which is funny, because I haven’t forgotten what they did to MY dad.

I think I also said that I would forgive him if he learns more about atheists from this experience and stops stereotyping a group from the actions of one person.

Where I disagree with you is if this is similar to mouthing off about something.  It is no longer acceptable to settle grievances with fists, knives, or guns even in the heat of the moment.

It is not the same thing as mouthing off to someone you disagree with that is not illegal. What is illegal is to discriminate against a group of people no matter the grievance. It is no different from a “No Irish” sign in an establishment for whatever reason. Even if an Irishman were to rob him, it still wouldn’t be understandable to hang a “No Irishmen” sign in the window.

The stereotyping is what is important to me. 

No, no, he referred to his OWN religion in conjunction with his business. THAT’S the SEKRET CODE WERDZ.

it’s not a leftist thing. It’s not a right-wing thing. It’s an ideologue thing. Political leanings neither inoculate nor make you more vulnerable to it.

Personally, I could give a shit if he apologizes until Zombie Jesus shows his face on Earth again.  I was at Skepticon and went to Gelato Mio with a friend that Saturday afternoon to grab a cup of coffee.  The counter help was surly (not the owner, but an older “gentleman”), I didn’t get the coffee I paid for, and there were no stir sticks or spoons or anything on the prep cart with the cream, sugar, etc.  Ok, fine.  But my friend ended up in line behind another woman, with 2 young men behind her.  When the woman in front of my friend had completed her transaction, he looked at my friend, then looked past her to the men standing behind her and asked if he could help them!  And yes, he knew she was there, he had already spoken to her once about the restroom, and she was in his eye-line, directly in line between the woman and the male customers.  Then when she did get her coffee, one of the cups was only 1/2-full.  So I had a bad taste in my mouth from this business BEFORE the incident with the sign.  Would I go back to this business?  No.  But it has VERY LITTLE to do with that ridiculous sign and VERY VERY MUCH to do with how poorly we were treated in that business.