ATTENTION ATHEISTS: You do NOT have a ‘Civil Right’ to a Pizza Discount

Have you seen this story?

Pizza parlor’s church discount gives atheists indigestion

This post will be short and sweet – because the point that needs to be made here is ‘stupid-simple.’ If you are an Atheist (which is impossible, by the way), then you do not – repeat – do not have a ‘civil right’ against a private business owner who offers a 10% discount to anyone who brings in a Church bulletin. There is no right to freedom from religion anywhere in the Constitution or our laws, but there is a right to freedom of religion – which means the ability to practice it in our daily lives. This means the pizza owner is the one who actually has a case against this Atheist – for trying to violate the pizza owner’s right to freedom of religion. That’s it. Case closed.

Now, to those who think they are Atheists: you are not an Atheist. Atheism is impossible. To be an Atheist, you must prove that God does not exist. You can no more do this than those who believe can prove He does exist. However, our cases are not equal. Those of us who believe can give indirect evidence of God’s existence, but you who reject Him cannot give indirect evidence that He doesn’t. All you can do is reject and deny the indirect evidence of His existence. Now, you have the freedom to do so, but you do not have a right to impose your rebellion on those who believe in God. That is forcing your will on another, which is a violation of Natural Law.  Finally, before you bother arguing with me about this, understand that – IF you were really an Atheist – then God would bother you about as much as a Pokémon. To you, they should be equally fictional – but they are not. Pokémon do not seem to be setting you off but God does which – whether you understand this or not — is an indirect indication that God is real.

Related Post on my other blog page:

There is no ‘Right’ to Freedom FROM Religion


13 thoughts on “ATTENTION ATHEISTS: You do NOT have a ‘Civil Right’ to a Pizza Discount

  1. There actually is a “freedom from religion” explicitly delineated in the Constitution. It’s called the Establishment Clause. In fact, this is the very first right listed in the Bill of Rights.

    The Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits businesses from offering promotions which inherently prefer people based upon religious practice. If you would prefer that business owners be allowed to discriminate against their customers, you should probably write your Congressman and ask for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act.

    Furthermore, the idea that someone would need to prove that God does not exist in order to be an atheist is just as ridiculous as the idea that a person would need to prove God exists in order to be a theist.

    1. Actually, no, there is not. What you have done is regurgitate the lie that was started in the later part of the 19th Century and codified in the early part of the 20th. Anyone who reads the plain language of the 1st Amendment can clearly see that is says there is a freedom OF religion. Those who care about the truth can then read the notes concerning the debate over the 1st Amendment — WHICH ARE IN THE CONGREGATIONAL RECORD — and they will find that the founders were CLEARLY looking to protect the freedom OF religion. What’s more, a further reading of the time will find repeated references to infidels (those who did not believe in God) and — in every case I have found so far — those people are condemned where public service is concerned.

      This then means that the Civil Rights legislation is not only UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it also violates the principles of Natural Law which are set forth in the Declaration of Independence as the foundation upon which the Constitution was founded. Once again, this is the result of a minority forcing their will on the majority because they could not get the Constitution amended through the proper means.

      Finally,the idea that you must prove God does not exist to be an Atheist is a matter of definition. If not, then you are believing on FAITH — which is the definition of a religion!!! And once you cross that line, YOU HAVE CROSSED THE PROTECTION AGAINST FORCING A STATE RELIGION ON THE NATION — AND YOU WOULD BE THE ONE TRYING TO FORCE ATHEISM ON THE NATION!

      Like I said: either way you slice this issue, the ATHEIST is the one who is in the wrong.

      1. The very first line of the very first amendment to the US Constitution says that government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It is exceedingly clear from the discussion of the framers, both in their recorded public discourse and in their private journals, intended this language to prevent religion from dictating government. It was largely based on Virginia’s religious freedom laws which guaranteed “freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination.”

        On the Civil Rights Act, again, if you think that businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against their customers, you should ask your Congressman to work towards repealing the Civil Rights Act.

        The definition of atheism has nothing to do with faith. Atheism is the rejection of belief in gods. I know quite a number of Buddhist atheists who are incredibly religiously faithful.

        1. Yes, exactly: shall make NO LAW! Which means Congress has ZERO authority in matters of religion. That was reserved to the States which — at the time of ratification — nearly half had official State religions. That FACT of history shoots the idea of ‘separation’ down. In fact, HISTORY destroys that false argument. Until the Progressive era, this nation had no notion of separating Church and State — not in the sense we know it today. This clause also means that the US Supreme Court has ZERO jurisdiction in matters of religion — except in cases like this where one person is trying to prevent the free exercise of another person’s Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom OF religion.

          Next, it is clear that the founders did not want what they called a SECT to dominate government. In modern terms, this means they did not want an official denomination dictating to the government. But they DID NOT intend or desire that religion be kicked out of government. In fact, they CLEARLY stated — MANY TIMES — that without morality, there is no freedom; and without RELIGION there is NO MORALITY!@ John Adams even said this nation’s Constitution was designed for a religious people and wholly unsuited to any other. Again, history defeats your argument.

          As for the notion that a business can be “legally allowed:” this is another way of saying you need to get government “permission” to earn a living, and that this permission is determined by whether or not you will conform to the GOVERNMENT and NOT GOD! The founders NEVER intended this. In fact, the founders would have gone to war with you over your argument. It is a violation of freedom of religion and property rights.

          Finally, Athe4ism IS a religion — the Supreme Court has even said so. Which mean — by YOUR argument — the Atheist who attacks other religions IS VIOLATING THAT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! Which then confirms my claim: that what is at issue here is that one religion (Atheism) wants to be established as the official State religion — in clear violation of the Constitution. Now, if I do not have the right to do this as a Christian, where and how have the Atheists found it???

          1. Yes, the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the Federal Government and not to the states. However, that has since been changed. Or do you think that states should be able to breach the freedoms of Speech and Press, as well? If New Hampshire voted, tomorrow, to make Christianity illegal, would you argue they are free to do so because the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government?

            Where did Adams say that the Constitution was designed for a religious people? That wholly stands at odds with what he said in the Treaty of Tripoli: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

            On the Civil Rights Act, it is not a means of saying you need to get government permission to earn a living. We current have laws preventing discrimination. If you think that the government should not have laws against discrimination in business, you should write your Congressman to have the Civil Rights Act repealed.

            When has the Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion? The FFRF does not want atheism to become the state religion. It just wants laws against discrimination to be followed and enforced.

            1. The Bill of Rights applied to the States and to the Federal Government since the time of ratification. Some areas addressed all the citizens of the U.S., some addressed the States, some addressed the Federal Government, some addressed all. I am beginning to doubt how well you know and understand it. What’s more, I do not remember the Bill of Rights having been amended, so when did it change? I’ll tell you what you just did: you just conceded my argument that it has been ILLEGALLY changed by people using the UNCONSTITUTIONAL doctrine of ‘the living document,’ by which they claimed the ‘right’ to change the Constitution through interpretation. This is exactly what I mean by might-makes-right. Unless the People stand up against them, these tyrants get to force their will on others because they control the force of government, but there is NOTHING ‘legal’ about this except in the strictest sense of the name. The spirit and purpose of the law have both been torn asunder by this practice.

              As for Adams: read this blog. You’ll find his quotes on this issue everywhere. You will also find that the reason he said that about the U.S. govt. was because he was an APPEASER — just like many in our govt. today. The Treaty of Tripoli was with ISLAMIC JIHADISTS!!! They said we are a Christian nation, and the Muslims were right. But Adams was paying the ransoms and did not want to go to war so he said these things strictly to try and appease the Muslims who were attacking our shipping. Please, my friend, learn history. If you do, you’ll find that SAME John Adams not only said our Constitution was designed for a religious people, he also started the Treaty of Paris in the name of the holy Trinity.

              Now, about your comment on the civil rights act: if I am only allowed to run a business IF — and ONLY IF — I do so as the government dictates, THAT IS A DE FACTO REQUIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT PERMISSION!

              “We have laws preventing discrimination…” Yes, but what if I decide discrimination only applies to certain protected classes — AS HAS BEEN DONE IN OUR SOCIETY ALREADY!? Who protects the majority who are being told they must bow to the demands of the minority??? WHo is protecting the Christian from the dictates of the Atheists? Again, ATHEISM IS AN OFFICIAL RELIGION PER SCOTUS!!! SO when they force their demands on the Christian, this violates the Christian’s 1st Amendment Rights, and it places the govt. in the position of establishing Atheism as an official State religion — a CLEAR violation of both the letter and the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

              When did the SCOTUS find Atheism a religion? If you do not know the points of this discussion, then how do you think you are prepared to discuss it? Go look it up, you’ll find it. Look for it here and on You’ll find the links there, too. And as for wanting these discrimination laws enforced: BS! What you want is what YOU want — period!!! How about those of us who want the CONSTITUTION enforced? What about us and our rights? Who is protecting us from YOU!?

          2. The application of the Bill of Rights to state-level decisions did not arise until after the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was in place. In the 1890’s, the Supreme Court judged on the basis of the 14th Amendment that the civil rights outlined in the Constitution must apply at the state level, as well. This includes the proscription against establishing religion. There was nothing illegal in either the ratification of the 14th Amendment or in the Supreme Court’s ruling upon it.

            Once again, where did Adams say the Constitution was not designed for the irreligious? You made the claim, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for it. It’s entirely possible that Adams did make such a claim, and if he had, I would be the better for that knowledge. However, I’m not going to take you at your word, on this, because I have come across dozens of fabricated quotes and misrepresentative paraphrases on the Internet, before, and I currently have no reason to believe this is not yet another.

            Yes, the Treaty of Tripoli was with Muslims. What’s your point? If you are arguing that I should not trust John Adams’ word, then why should I trust his word as regards the alleged quote which you proffered? If he was such an “appeaser,” why would I not similarly think that a statement about the irreligious was made spuriously in order to appease the religious?

            Again, with the claim that SCOTUS has ruled “atheism” to be a religion, I would love to see a source on that. I am aware of the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, in which the SCOTUS ruled that secular humanism is a religion, but I am not aware of any decision in which the SCOTUS decided that atheism is a religion. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof. I have absolutely no reason to believe your claim, as it stands, and I’m not about to do your work for you.

            Yes, we have laws against the discrimination of protected classes, including religion or the lack thereof. Again, if you would prefer that it was legal for businesses to discriminate against protected classes, you should write to your Congressman and ask him to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

            All I want is for the discrimination laws to be followed and enforced, equally. I argue just as vehemently against the violation of a Christian’s civil rights as I do against the violation of an atheist’s or a Muslim’s or anyone else’s.

            1. Or so goes the argument — but that is NOT true. The equal protect was ALWAYS there — it’s just that bad men and women did not bother to apply it. Or have you forgotten what the Declaration says about all men being created equal? But this STILL leaves you a problem with your argument over religion. You are still stuck trying to make YOUR religion the official State religion over all others. You have yet to tell me how this is not a violation of my rights, or — for that matter — why YOU are not the one discriminating against me over my beliefs.

              Adams: get off your lazy but and Google it. I have provided the quote many times. You can play this childish game all day long, but the rules of logic do NOT require me to provide evidence for something that is considered common knowledge, and that quote by Adams falls under that category. So look it up.

              Treaty of Tripoli: the point is, Adams put that wording in there to try and appease the Muslims. In ALL else that he did in his life, he held firmly to the Christian faith. You are trying to cherry-pick something — out of context — that, in context, does NOT support your argument.

              Atheism: again, look it up. It was in the New York Times, for crying out loud. Either way, it still fits the definition. You are governing your life according to a set of beliefs based entirely on faith. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION — by definition and SCOTUS ruling.

              As for writing to my congressman: what good does it do when we are no longer a country of laws but of men — as you are proving?

              Here’s the thing: what you WANT is YOUR version of discrimination enforced on the nation. THIS IS A FACT! You cannot argue otherwise because — in ALL such cases — one side is going to be discriminated against. Either you get your way and force your will on another, or they get their REAL rights protected. But the crucial key here is that this is NOT an ‘equal’ dispute. You are not harmed by the people who do not want to serve gays, or who want to give a discount to believers. On the other hand, when Atheists or homosexuals or any other minority use the government to FORCE their will on people who believe this way, their rights ARE violated. They do you no harm, but you do them harm. There is a moral right/wrong in this, and you are on the wrong side of right — period!!!

          3. I can’t believe that you’ve been attempting to denigrate my understanding of history when you don’t even know that the Declaration of Independence is not a document of national law. The Declaration was an announcement that the thirteen colonies were divorcing themselves from British control in order to establish thirteen separate and sovereign new nations. These independent nations did not adopt an overarching government until a dozen years later. The United States Constitution delineates Federal law, not the Declaration of Independence.

            On the Adams and SCOTUS remarks, there is a particular irony in your calling me lazy because you do not want to take the time to support your own spurious claims. If someone claimed he had proof that the moon was made of cheese, then told you to go find that proof yourself when you challenged him, you wouldn’t take that person very seriously, would you? If you want to irrationally assert unsupported claims, you are free to it. Just don’t expect anyone to believe you just because you can’t be bothered to actually shoulder your own burden.

            On the Treaty of Tripoli, you asserted that Adams only said a thing because he is an appeaser. If I am to take this wholly unsupported claim at face value, then your other wholly unsupported claim regarding his statements on the irreligious becomes even more suspect. Again, when you make claims, it is your responsibility to support them.

            Again, I am only asking for enforcement of the laws which we currently have. I don’t think a Christian business owner should discriminate against an atheist customer, just as I don’t think a Muslim business owner should discriminate against a Christian customer, or an atheist against a Jew, or an Italian against a Japanese, et cetera, et cetera.

            1. You just proved that is you who do not know the facts of our founding or our government:

              “Before the formation of this Constitution…[t]his Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has never been disannulled.”

              –John Quincy Adams, 1824

              I think he knows the subject better than both of us, seeing how he was there, and he said the Declaration IS part of our law. It is the LEGAL DOCUMENT that established this nation — which is why the Constitution recognizes that the U.S. had existed 12 years BEFORE the Constitution was written.

              You see, you and those like you have destroyed the Constitution because it stood in the way of you being able to force your will on others who simply want to live their lives as they see fit.

              Now, about John Adams: LAZY BOXING PYTHAGORAS could not would not Google this because of what he would have found:

              “Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

              –John Adams, October 11, 1798

              A quick Google for “Atheism ruled a religion” will yield the truth of that contention, too. HINT: I am correct in my claim 😉

              You do not have to take my claim about Adams being an appeaser on face value; you just have to get off your lazy butt and do so research. If you do, you will find it was one of the primary reasons Jefferson ran against Adams, and for the rift between them. And what did Jefferson do as soon as he was elected? We went to war with the Muslims and the piracy ended (thanks in part to my brethren in the Marines).

              Finally, I am asking for enforcement of THE FREAKING CONSTITTUION, and if that were done, the laws you keep pleading for would be ruled exactly what they are — UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and thus, NOT LEGITIMATE LAWS AT ALL!!!

              So — again — you are arguing for special case and privilege, not “equal protection.”

    2. @ Boxing, (and anyone else reading these comments)

      May I suggest and recommend the historically accurate viewpoint from which to read America’s founding documents? The historically correct viewpoint to study America’s founding prior to the 20th century judicial activism which turned “Constitution review” on its head.

      One first must understand what “natural law” is; then John Locke’s theories; and our founding father’s writings which illuminate their understandings of natural law, liberty, and limited powers.

      The first 10 amendments, known as America’s “Bill of rights” do not grant “the people” any rights.

      The Bill of Rights merely enumerate (or spell out) the understood limitations upon the Federal Government, as created, when the Constitution was adopted in 1789.

      The Bill of Rights was/were written and adopted fulfilling the promise to do so in response to criticisms leveled at the then proposed Constitution not being specific enough.

      Only after one understands what “natural law” is, can one understand what a “right” is. A right is described in America’s Declaration of Independence:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


      “… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, …”

      The “Bill of Rights” merely acknowledge “the peoples” rights granted by “our Creator” which pre-exist America’s Constitution.

      The Bill of rights were promised by proponents of the new Constitution as the first order of business IF “the People” adopted the Constitution. This promise was made in response to criticisms leveled at the “inadequacy” of the Constitution. This promise was fulfilled as promised.

      “rights” can never be granted by government.

      “rights” can only be taken away by government. When government writes a law “giving” something to one minority group, then government must take that “something given” from all the other “people”. When this very action is taken, “equal protection under the law” is turned inside out and upside down and is in reality, unobtainable. Therefor, Un-Constitutional, otherwise stated, ILLEGAL.

      Now, to the specific “right” of “the People”, which pre-exists the Constitution, and which government can never transgress without a Constitutional Amendment pursuant to Article V.

      “Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      The particular language at issue;

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      And the even more particular language in our 1st amendment;

      “. . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

      As anyone who is honest can plainly see, the federal government has no legal power (authority) to prevent “the people” from freely exercising their religion. In Joe’s example, pizza parlor owner can exercise the public display of his religion and legally give discounts to any church or religion he pleases. Atheist can go buy pizza from whomever he wishes, but atheist cannot force pizza guy to give him a discount or not give a discount to whichever religion he so chooses.

      The other “interpretations” commonly asserted, are in reality, purposefully misleading “interpretations” taken by judicial activists when “the people” would not agree to political pressure to amend our Constitution and the first amendment LEGALLY, by Article V procedure.

      (Note, I edited by comment at 19:30 cst)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s