Restaurant refuses service to Christian group, citing staff 'dignity'

[tenderfoot]

A restaurant in Richmond last week canceled a reservation for a private event being held by a conservative Christian organization, citing the group’s opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

“We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from Metzger Bar and Butchery, a German-influenced restaurant in the Union Hill neighborhood whose kitchen is helmed by co-owner Brittanny Anderson, a veteran of TV cooking shows including “Top Chef” and “Chopped.” “Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”

The group, the Family Foundation, was set to host a dessert reception for supporters on Nov. 30, the group’s president, Victoria Cobb, wrote in a blog post describing the incident. About an hour and a half before it was slated to start, one of the restaurant’s owners called to cancel it, she wrote. “As our VP of Operations explained that guests were arriving at their restaurant shortly, she asked for an explanation,” Cobb wrote. “Sure enough, an employee looked up our organization, and their wait staff refused to serve us.”

The Family Foundation is based in Richmond and advocates for “policies based on biblical principles.” It has lobbied against same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/12/06/metzger-restaurant-family-foundation/

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

1. isn't this what they want to SCOTUS to put a rubber stamp on? only serving people one agrees with

[Bluethroughu]

28. Exactly!

[kwijybo]

61. Yeah, but it's not supposed to hurt THEM!

They aren't they ones that are supposed to get hurt, it's the others that are.

[RobinA]

90. It Strikes Me

that it cuts both ways. Many people think customers must be served no matter how one feels about their beliefs. So which is it?

[sinkingfeeling]

2. The RW doesn't like it when they're treated to a taste of their own discriminating behavior.

[Glorfindel]

3. Quite right. Good for them.

NT

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Was sauce for the goose part of that planned meal?

[AllaN01Bear]

55. yes mr spock.

[SergeStorms]

5. Wonderful.

See how you like it, godsquad.

[WarGamer]

6. Very similar to the Colorado news story...

This won't end well for the restaurant. Frankly it's no different than a restaurant refusing to book a reservation for a Jewish group or Muslim group.

§ 2.2-3900. Short title; declaration of policy
A. This chapter shall be known and cited as the Virginia Human Rights Act.

B. It is the policy of the Commonwealth to:

1. Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions

[Ocelot II]

11. That depends on whether SCOTUS says a web designer can refuse

to do a web site for a gay wedding despite Colorado's public accommodation law.

[WarGamer]

13. And the flip side...

Can an LGBT baker be forced by law to bake a cake if a religious group orders it??

[bluesbassman]

25. I've never heard of a gay couple wanting "Our Gay Wedding" written on their cake.

And I bet none want GAY splashed all over their web page either.

[ShazzieB]

47. Oh really? 😉

First of all, I'm sure some people do want "gay" splashed all over their cake, their website, and everything else. But that's really beside the point...

Any wedding website will have the names of the couple getting married, at the very minimum. In the case of a website for the Wedding of Jack and Tom or the Nuptials of Nancy and Jill, The Gay is very clearly implied. That's enough to make people like that Colorado web designer start clutching their pearls and hyperventilating.

And as for the cake, what if a same sex couple wants a cake topper with 2 brides or 2 grooms, as many do? SACRILEGE! 😱

Weddings and all of their traditional accouterments have many personal elements that will reflect who the couple are, including whether they're both the same gender. Anyone providing services for a wedding is going to be very much aware of whether the couple is the same sex, as is anyone who visits the website or eats the cake.

And anyone who disapproves of same sex marriage will be just as disapproving, whether GAY is "splashed all over" everything or not, which is just too damned bad.

[FBaggins]

40. Not really

Even with this court, the web designer wouldn’t get away with a blanket refusal to do business with a gay couple.

And “I don’t feel safe around gay people” (which is the parallel of this story” probably wouldn’t even get Thomas/Alito absent a stinger claim of an actual threat

[NutmegYankee]

17. Depends on if this is religion or poltiical position.

It is just as easy to argue that this is a political group and their positions made the staff uncomfortable. Much like a Jew serving Neo-Nazis, it's completely reasonable for LBGT people to be uneasy serving people who desire them to die by stoning.

[WarGamer]

18. That would end up in the Courts.

[NutmegYankee]

23. Often has and typically the business wins on poltical positions.

There is previous case law here.

[WarGamer]

53. I think arguing politics vs Religion might be tough... depending on the Court.

[NutmegYankee]

66. The restaurant made it clear the groups political activities were the reason.

I don't think it's going to be that tough. I suspect this fails at the first complaint and goes nowhere.

[WarGamer]

67. political opinions based on religious dogma...

Like I said... it'd be up to the Court

There was religion long before there was "political opinion"

[NullTuples]

81. Sorta like opinions & actions based on a corporation's "religious dogma"?

I mean, at some point they've got to realize they've pushed it too far, right? ...Right???

The problem is that beliefs are just opinions. It doesn't matter if someone slaps "religious" in front as a modifier. But over the last 20-25 years conservatives have decided that if an opinion is labelled "religious" it should be allowed to triumph over nearly everything else. So now we have states that allow parents to harm or even kill their kids without liability - if it happens as part of them following their religious opinions (see Ohio for the most recent passed legislation). And we've got a Supreme Court that is willing to decide that some religious opinions - even if not backed by the tenets of an organized religion - should triumph over most other considerations, including anti-discrimination laws. Aka, other people's Liberty.

[WarGamer]

103. Like I've said like 7 times in this thread...

A Court or two will decide that.

anti-discrimination laws ALWAYS include religion as a protected class.

In theory, a redneck bar in Oklahoma CAN NOT deny a Muslim group a reservation.

[Generic Brad]

58. Like previous case law matters to Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett

They are there to uphold their concept of a Christian nation. They think the law is what they say it is.

[NutmegYankee]

65. The restaurant made it clear the groups political activities were the reason

That's going to destroy an argument that it was because of religion. Given that political activity isn't protected, it's a tough stretch to make a ruling in their favor. And honestly, given the clear discrimination that thousand of right-wing establishments use against Democrats (refusing to serve them, etc.) a ruling that political activity is protected would actually benefit us.

[lambchopp59]

85. The staff feels threatened due to their inherent traits.

Vs. this group who chooses to be bigots encouraging more bigotry.

[TigressDem]

34. Although, both sides could argue the same point.

People with those viewpoints have been going into venues and shooting the place up.

If they were just staying in a room and keeping to themselves, but this was some sort of reception where they would probably be promoting their agenda. Having to serve people who are actively discriminating against your wait staff practically to their face.

The main idea I would go to if I were the owner would be, people are being murdered in public places by people who have these same agendas. It's hard to know where the rhetoric stops and the shooting begins.


Could you force some black owned restaurant to host a KKK rally?

[lambchopp59]

84. False equivalency

One side of these controversies has made a choice to be bigots.
The other has only made a choice to be honest with themselves and others about their inherent traits.
The false equivalency becomes stupefyingly apparent asking the straight-proud one question:
"So when did you decide to be straight?"

[TigressDem]

96. OP is about a venue not wanting to serve bigots for safety reasons. I replied to post about lawsuit.

In court, I believe the case could be made that the climate we are in should allow businesses to protect themselves from potential violence and as these groups are associating themselves with that whole movement, how can we know where the rhetoric stops and the shooting begins?

Honestly. If someone wants to be a bigot, they are entitled to their stupidity.

BUT they are in NO WAY entitled to force their stupidity on me or demand I give them a place to spout their lies and hatred.

And legally, when their behavior endangers another person, there are laws against that, or should be.


I think you are a step above that and looking at what is actually ethical.


The other side will claim victim status because they lost their reservation because of their religion. BUT it isn't about that, it's about what they are trying to do with their viewpoints and how it is harmful to her employees who have the right to not be harassed in their own workspace.

IF PEOPLE WANT TO THINK THAT WAY, it's one thing. Can't save the world from itself.

BUT if they ALIGN THEMSELVES with gun toting terrorists, then they lose privileges.

SO we might get some people to drop away from THIS part of the CRAZY sect because "all they want is free speech" and they don't condone BULLETS as free speech.


It's another way to tear away the layers of the support for killing people for no reason other than who they are.

[old as dirt]

101. How does religion even enter into this?

Religion has nothing to do with the refusal, as near as I can tell.

It seems that they want special privileges that others (say, atheist homophobes) do not have access to.

[underpants]

7. Too bad.

[flying_wahini]

8. I hope some Richmond locals will support this restaurant in the coming "cancel culture" backlash

that we all know is coming.

[lambchopp59]

86. Our choice to be bigots "canceled"

Vs entire demographic "canceled" for inherent traits.
Straight-proud get stupefied by the one reality check question every time:
"So when did you decide to be straight?"

[Ocelot II]

9. This "religious freedom" thing can go both ways, it would seem.

So, a business can refuse service to a religion on account of their beliefs, just like a business can refuse service to others because of its religious beliefs. Hoist on their own petard, maybe?

[WarGamer]

10. Of course...

Just like in Colorado, their law prevents an LGBT baker from refusing to make a cake for an anti-LGBT group.

[RussBLib]

15. I'll bet the wait staff has "sincerely held beliefs" .....

....the the "Christians" claim to have.

Don't restaurants already reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?

This sounds like a good reason to deny service. Those "Christians" would probably prefer the LGBT staff to be put to death.

[Ilsa]

12. I think the restaurant should have served them. Use these dishes:

?v=1627986711

[utopian]

14. The way I see it

They didn't refuse service because the group was Christian. Rather, it was the hateful philosophy and actions of a specific organization, not that much different from refusing to serve relatively secular hate groups.

[panader0]

60. What did Christ say about abortion or gays again?

Maybe in the Old Testament, pre-Jesus, i.e. Christ, i.e. Christianity.

[Genki Hikari]

105. He said that all those laws in the old book

Were valid as long as the earth existed. That includes the laws about teh gayz.

Matthew 5:17-18.

[lambchopp59]

87. Inherent traits of one group

Vs. The bigoted choices of another.
Hmmm.

[Ilsa]

16. Agador, Armand, and Albert could serve them.

[JanMichael]

19. Good. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Whiny fucks.

[gratuitous]

20. No obligation to cater a meal for people to plot your demise

But if the Family Foundation people want some "sprinkles" and "special sauce" with their order, I'm confident the helpful staff at Metzger Bar & Butchery will cheerily accommodate them.

[Prendy]

21. What do we really want?

If given the choice, would you rather be able to refuse service to Christian groups with whom you disagree OR have a Christian merchant compelled to serve the LGBTQ+ Community?

[Random Boomer]

73. The former by far

I don't want Christian bigots providing a service for me -- who needs that kind of pinched face negativity staring me in the face? Being able to turn them away and not have to deal with them in return? Golden.

[lambchopp59]

88. "Choice" is the issue at the center of this.

This group has chosen to be bigots spreading bigotry, while LGBTQ are born that way.
The stupefyingly stunning question that defines all this:
"So when did you decide to be straight?"

[Mr.Bill]

22. They should serve them with

all male servers in drag.

[wnylib]

33. That's what I was thinking. Go ahead and

serve them, but make it clear that no employee is expected to accommodate the group's views. Serve them with pride in who they are and let the religious group feel uncomfortable if it bothers them.

If any of the people in the religious group acts or speaks offensively to the staff, then the manager can step in and insist on respect for his/her employees.

On a side note, it's interesting that the management name is Metzger and it is a butchery as well as a restaurant. The Metzger surname originated as an occupational name. In German it means butcher.

[Eko]

59. That is what I would have done.

And I am an old straight white kinda fat dude, but I would have worn some sheer negligee and tight fitting underwear and a bra and served them with the biggest smile in the world and having a blast doing it. Never fight their fight like the restaurant did, always, always fight yours.

[jmowreader]

83. That would take some preparation

“Mary, a party of two dozen LGBT-hating bigots just made a reservation for three days from now. Your job is to take all our male waitstaff to Goodwill to buy floor-length dresses for them. Then run them over to Macy’s and have them fitted for bras with large cup sizes, go to that medical supply store on Arlington for mastectomy fillers, stop by Claire’s for really gaudy clip-on earrings, and finally to Sally Beauty for wigs and the longest false eyelashes they have in stock. Make sure they report to work three hours before shift time so they can get dressed and their makeup done. Here’s the company credit card. Get whatever you need to make sure these guests have a meal they’ll never forget.”

“Love it! You want me to stop off at the dollar store for some really odious perfume?”

“Yeah…see if they have two-inch-long press-on nails while you’re at it. No detail can be overlooked! Everything must be absolutely perfect!”

[Girard442]

24. Hope they like apples...

...cuz how do you like them apples?

[msongs]

26. cancel their event with only 90 minutes notice? hmm financial harm suit coming soon nt

[forgotmylogin]

54. That's what I was thinking.

They shouldn't have booked and then cancelled at the last minute "as guests were starting to arrive".

[Just A Box Of Rain]

27. I went to The Family Foundation website.

As part of a long "We Were Cancelled" diatribe against the left, I read this:

We know our organization will continue to be cut off from services in the current environment. We know we will pay more for goods and services because our options will be fewer. We know this could become very difficult for our work. This is in part why we purchased our own building, forecasting a day when we would no longer be a welcomed tenant.

Wait for it...wait for it:

Will you consider a donation today?

[TurboDem]

30. LMAO!!

Yes, I considered a donation and the answer is NO!!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

38. Funny enough, I came to the same conclusion.

[LakeArenal]

43. Yes I would consider a donation. In their name to a LGBTQ charity.

[ShazzieB]

49. Ooh, nice idea! 😁

[LakeArenal]

50. I get one sometimes!

[Initech]

42. Fuck their hate and bigotry, er, work if that's what you want to call it.

[lambchopp59]

89. So did I

There's no feedback form. Just donations.
I was going to bring up the tiny little issue I have with this on their website:
They've chosen to be bigots spreading bigotry.
LGBTQ only decided to be honest with themselves and others about inherent traits.

[Warpy]

29. I suspect the real reason was that nobody on staff wanted to be their servers

since the WWJD crowd are notoriously stingy when it comes to tipping wait staff or anyone else.

I doubt it had anything at all to do with matters of conscience or belief. It was purely a pocketbook issue, why work their tails off for a bunch of ungrateful wretches who think people should work for no reward on earth, only in heaven?

[Collimator]

32. That is what I had thought when I read the thread title.

I have read from numerous sources*, that modestly-priced, "family" restaurants hate the apres-church crowds that frequent their businesses on Sundays. The common theme is that the customers are rude and entitled, often messy to the point of being gross and notoriously bad tippers.

*Check out Captain Cassidy's essays on the OnlySky website.

[keithbvadu2]

35. Often tipping church tracts that falsely look like money.

Often tipping church tracts that falsely look like money.

https://i.insider.com/56845877dd089545558b4876?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

[ShazzieB]

52. OMFG.

How incredibly rude and insulting!

It's right up there with the anti-Halloween tracts some of those jackholes put in kids' trick or treat bags! (My daughter got one of those one year. We were both so pissed!)

It blows my mind that anyone can NOT realize how offensive this kind of crap is. The level of self-righteousness and "I know what's best for you better than you do!" condescension is off the charts!

[Celerity]

76. pic

[Unwind Your Mind]

37. I can tell you from personal experience that is true

[japple]

41. That was my first thought as well. Those church folks come into a

restaurant after Sunday services in large parties, demand lots of attention, and leave a couple dollars or a note inviting the server to attend their church. This is a very common complaint in my neck of the woods where Southern Baptists are an overwhelming majority.

[IbogaProject]

78. Groups usually require +18%

But maybe that's just NYC & up here. That would fix the issue except for small single table parties. Here any group over 6 is mandatory 18% as those parties often skimp on the tip if not mandated.

[Timewas]

31. Yes

we need more of this type

[iluvtennis]

36. I personally don't like this decision. If you're open for business, I think you serve any and all

who come to your establishment.

I say this because I don't want our US society to revert back in time where folks (e.g., Black ppl) were refused service at restaurants, hotels, etc.

[vanlassie]

70. Who does? But the timing is good, and

it is a good idea to get these entitled snobs to think about what they say they want. Goose- gander.

[iluvtennis]

71. Yes, I see both sides as I too like the tit for tat. But just don't want to see our society regress.

[lambchopp59]

93. "Both sides"

One has made the choice to be bigots encouraging bigotry.
Vs...

[iluvtennis]

98. Not from the bigotry standpoint. I abhor bigots. I'm simply saying many lives were lost

in the battle for civil right and right to be treated equally and I don't want our society to lose that progress.

It's just my opinion that no one should be denied the services of public establishments beacuse of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities, etc.

[tenderfoot]

74. How about having to serve an outlaw biker gang that intends on trashing the establishment?

eom

[IbogaProject]

79. I agree

The rejection should be in advance and in writing. This is a slippery slope. They could have forced +18% and let the group decide.

[lambchopp59]

91. Refused service because they're bigots encouraging bigotry

Vs LGBTQ's inherent traits.
The only choice I nade was to be honest with myself and others.

[inthewind21]

99. I don't know

what all the fuss is about. Just about every eatery, bar, convenience store, you name it has a sign in it that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Funny, no one has thought a thing about said signs in, oh, forever. Which brings to mind the "No Shoes, No Shirt, No service" signs you see everywhere. During COVID mask mandates, when the anti maskers (my sister was one) were claiming mask mandates were violating their rights. I conceded to my sister that she was right. Making you WEAR a mask in an eatery was a violation of our rights. And so was pants! And yes, I stripped off my pants and sat down in my spanks, no pants. It was spanks, not a thong. So really it was no different than being in shorts in the summer. Actually, probably better seeing some of the kleenex that passes for pants/shorts/skirts these days. Amazing how many people freaked out and simply couldn't make the connection. No, I didn't win and was asked to leave. But I just HAD to make the point.

[Wild blueberry]

39. Not a "Christian" group so much as a group that forces their idea of religion on everyone else

Not a church but a group pushing legislators to enact their views onto everyone else.
No thank you.

[Red Mountain]

44. I guess I have to differentiate

between serving a class of people and a group of people.

I'm sure they serve lots of Christians. Likely mostly Christians. Even Evangelical ones.

I doubt anybody wants to serve people who openly advocate against their basic human rights.

If some of the people in the party don't share the views of the family foundation.....well, too bad. Guilty by association.

It's a little like a public shaming. Must all interactions in the public sphere require us to accept all viewpoints?

Cause I can't. See a Nazi, punch a Nazi.

The one thing I will not tolerate is intolerance.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

45. People dont have to serve

Terrorists or terrorist sympathizers that want them dead.the baptist,evangelical and the right wing churches have become hotbeds of terrorism and fascism.

I wouldnt serve christian nazis.



But if I had to I would spice thier food so it tasted awful. Give them the stale bread
Wilted lettuce. Not old enough to make people sick but the old, stale,freezer burnt stuff. All thier sodas would be flat and thier coffee cool. And I would let my servers be as leisurely as they wanted to serving them.

I would make thier dining experience unpleasant. Because they are christian terrorists who want me and my employees
Dead.

Fuck the damn nazi pigs.

[BlueIdaho]

46. Hey ChristoFascists

Have a great big spoonful of your own medicine!

[lambchopp59]

92. It's worse than that.

The Christofascists made the choice to be that way.

[Sibelius Fan]

48. Bravo!!

[twodogsbarking]

51. No food for you.

[AllaN01Bear]

56. restraunts have the right to refuse service to anyone . period

eggswent.

[republianmushroom]

57. sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

[oldsoftie]

62. I guess this is a case of "what's good for the goose...."

[Sky Jewels]

63. Well, there's always Chik-fil-A or Crackerbarrel.

If they don't like it, they can lump it.

[634-5789]

68. If it has 'Faith', 'Fox', 'Freedom' or 'Family' in the title, run the hell away.

Beware the 4 'F's

[lonely bird]

69. Hmmm,

Anytime I see the word “Family” in a RW organization I immediately think bigots.

I also look with a jaundiced eye on any RW man/woman of God.

Btw, are “deeply held beliefs” limited to religion? Why would deeply held political beliefs be considered differently? The bottom line is that neither the baker/website designer likes gays, period. They cloaked their hatred in religion. Using that rationale a business must be allowed to discriminate against Jews if the owner claims a “deeply held belief” that Jews are Christ Killers. The same thing applies if the “deeply held belief” is that God made Blacks inferior and that to do business with or associate with Blacks insults God and so on ad infintum. The SCOTUS completely fucked up with that decision.

[Martin68]

72. This is what we have to do to get the court to play nice and acknowledge the civil rights of

Americans who right wingers hate. I never donate to the Salvation Army because they discriminate against LGBTQ people.

[IbogaProject]

75. I'm against this

Only because this was last minute without reasonable notice. I support the action itself.

[lambchopp59]

95. One side makes the choice to be bigots encouraging bigotry.

Vs those born to traits.

[FlyingPiggy]

77. I hope an inclusive christian group plans an event there

And be welcomed w both arms. That speaks volumes.

[Happy Hoosier]

80. Wapo's headline is a bit misleading....

It isn't because this is a "Christian" group, it's because they are actively lobbying to deny peoples' right based on their view of religion. They are a political group, motivated by religion.

[lambchopp59]

94. Vs LGBTQ who didn't make a choice.

[Happy Hoosier]

97. Agreed.

But slightly besides the point. Political organizations are not a protected class. Private businesses can decline to host political groups.

[Joinfortmill]

82. Lol. Be careful what you ask for.

[wendyb-NC]

100. The restaurant management did the right thing

[JohnnyRingo]

102. The SC is deciding if people "choose" to be gay or Muslim.

If they do, it may not be discrimination any more that refusing to serve Nazis.

If, on the other hand, people are born with their sexual persuasion, or their race as I believe, they cannot be turned away. No one is born as a religious or political extremist.

"As I see it."

[dembotoz]

104. Depends on the facility doesn't it? And the groups behavior

Does the group have a history of being loud.....singing, clapping shouting amens....all that stuff can be disruptive in a smaller venue.
Being at the next table to a bunch"filled with the spirit" can be an unsettling experience.....

if it is a separate room where you can close the doors and contain them, i would be more sympathetic to the group



both sides need to behave

[NowISeetheLight]

106. They will probably lose

A lawsuit based on “religious discrimination”. A better way to get away with this is to claim you have a sincerely held religious belief that all people must be created equally. That discriminating against anyone and treating them differently is against your religion. You could claim that by facilitating an event for these “sinners” you’d be forced to act against your beliefs.

You could even throw some Bible references into the mix. That your interpretation of the Bible is what your going by.

Some examples:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/treating_everyone_equally