You Can’t Make Me Say It!

Image via Friendly Atheist

Despite many Skeptic’s claim to rationality and clear thinking being behind their dismissal of God, often their actions show otherwise.  In Plano, Texas a local business owner began offering discounts for oil changes with one special caveat: Quote John 3:16.  Provided the customer recites the passage, they pay $19.99, $15 off the regular price.


Resident Marshall Wei, who had been to the Kwik Kar on Custer Road in Plano before, was happy to find the coupon hanging on his door last week.

Above the promised $19.99 price though, the coupon says customers must quote the New Testament verse John 3:16 to get the deal.

“I think maybe I forgot exactly what it is, and I needed to go look it up online,” Wei said

With the verse in hand, Wei drove to the store and pulled into the garage, but as he waited he started having second thoughts about the offer.

“Why should I be compelled to quote something I do not feel comfortable to quote?” he asked.

After a short discussion with a store manager about the verse, he declined to recite it, and ended up paying more than $46 for the service, more than twice what he expected.

“I’m paying you,” Wei said. “Why can’t you treat me like others?”

Just a few thoughts about business here.  Businesses can offer discounts at their will.  I hear all the time on the radio, “tell ’em  Jimmy sentcha and get 10% off!”.  A business is under no obligation to offer discounts in the first place.  If they do, it is on their terms.  Requiring a quotation from the Bible are the terms of this particular discount. Quote it and get the discount, or don’t.

What Wei is missing is that he is being treated like the others.  Everyone who cites the verse gets the discount, everyone who doesn’t pays full price.  There is no special treatment for others here, nor disparate treatment for Wei.  Wei is asking to be treated as though he cited the verse even though he refuses to.  He wants special treatment.  He wants the discount without complying with the terms of the discount offer.  I wonder if he goes to other shops and asks the owners to give him couponed pricing without presenting coupons?

“But Wei isn’t a Christian!” says the slow-minded objector.  This is irrelevant.  The discount isn’t exclusive to Christians, it is exclusive to anyone who cites the verse; Christian or not.  The business owner, Charlie Whittington, is not requiring belief in Christianity and he isn’t requiring the person to believe the verse or the Bible is true.  And contrary to Wei’s complaint, neither he or anyone else is being compelled to quote anything. The offer essentially excludes only the stubborn.  This is where the skeptics abandon rationality and clear thinking.

Wei I think is typical among some skeptics.  He is exhibiting an emotional aversion to God.  He says he didn’t feel comfortable reciting the passage.  But why not?  If it is just another meaningless line from a work of fiction, what’s the problem?  Would he feel as uncomfortable quoting from Aesop’s Fables?  Probably not.

But if fiction is fiction (not that Wei is reported to have claimed the Bible to be fiction), what is it about Jesus and the Bible that causes such discomfort that he cannot even stomach saying the verse out loud?  Wei’s is a stubbornness of emotion.


  1. Jesus for sale! Only $26! Where’s the Christian angst about profiteering in Jesus’s name?
    What if it were a requirement to be baptized and accept Jesus before getting a cheap oil change? Would that be too much of a commercialization of Christianity?
    What if the verse was Revelation 7:4 or 2 Thess. 2:11-12? Would Christians demand “context” before admitting to the terrible parts?
    Or maybe “I blaspheme the holy spirit according to Mark 3:29 and damn myself by eternal sin.” Would they rush to the defense of sinners or maybe stand up indignantly against flagrant disregard for Christian belief in the afterlife?

    What about a verse from the Qu’ran Surah 3:4 or 1:2 or a “Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.” from the Humanist Manifesto III? Would these blasphemous statements draw indignation from Christians unwilling to speak the words but still seeking a discount?

    I think every individual would react differently, but they are all legal and ethical. The Boy Scouts can discriminate against atheists and humanists, so businesses can offer discounts for religious recitation. And business do all sorts of weird promotions. Mostly, though, religion and politics aren’t a part of the promotions because businesses want to reach a maximum audience, not just a certain ideology.

    I don’t have any strong opinion about this particular instance since it’s just a verse recitation not an actual conversion – there’s really no breach of integrity. Atheists quote the Bible all the time and encourage others to read it. I’ve done it myself, in public, and seen others as well. What I can’t understand is why anyone would pay $46 for an oil change. $19.99 isn’t even a discount. I suppose if that includes some expensive oil maybe, but $20 is standard oil change price anywhere. It’s more like ‘get fleeced if you don’t read the passage’. There’s really no discount under consideration.

    • I dont mean this disparagingly at all, but the first two paragraphs are far too rambling for me to understand. If its an important part to your point, if you could clarify it, that’d be great.

      But as for quoting the Qu’ran or some other religious or non-religious text is the terms, then so be it. I or any other Christian has no say in what a business owner requires for a discount. But admittedly, I think many Christians would cry foul and decry hostility toward Christianity. In Plano, Tx I imagine the Christian population is pretty heavy, so I don’t think the requirement was all that controversial as far as it goes.

      I could recite certain Qu’ranic verses or Marxist statements for discounts without comprimising my integrity, and others I couldn’t. I wouldn’t cite any text that ridiculed Jesus, or that said Allah was the only true God. But all that means is I don’t get the discount. I wouldn’t be offended or go complaining to the media. Being in Plano I find it hard to believe there arent plenty of shops to get your oil changed at. The problem is, he had them start it and changed his mind afterward.

      Around here, oil changes range from $25-40 depending where you go. $20 is common with a coupon. Plus they add in oil disposal fees, taxes, and whatever. But I have no worries, I made Nissan give me free changes for life when I bought my Maxima.

  2. Marshall Art says:

    To answer your final question, “…what is it about Jesus and the Bible that causes such discomfort that he cannot even stomach saying the verse out loud?”, I’ve always felt that the issue is one of guilt. Any mention of the faith reminds the atheist or separationist of their sinfulness, particularly any sin they routinely commit that they’ve justified in their minds. Any mention is like holding a mirror to their faces and they see where they fall short, they see how they are in rebellion. Such a person might adamantly deny this, but I think in many cases they are not consciously aware, or, they are but struggle to suppress their consciences on such matters. To some extent, the passage that speaks of God putting His law on our hearts is in evidence here.

  3. I don’t know why you are extrapolating this one guy’s experience into being a slight on all skeptic’s rationality.

    Yes, businesses can offer discounts, yes, anyone who quoted the lines could have gotten the deal, but while the deal was not special price for Christians and not anyone else – it is not as simple as saying quoting the Bible is on par with asking for a quote of any fiction.

    What the business owner is doing is engaging in a culture war and bringing emotionally charged into the public discussion.

    Especially given what the particular passage was, it’s disingenuous to pretend that it was anything other than a discount for Christians, which is a discriminatory and bigoted practice. Because Christians don’t take bible quotes to be on par with fiction and that particular quote, which is cannon to the religion, is not comparable to lines or passages from books widely accepted as fiction.

    It’s not any different than the group who was encouraging pregnant women to drive in HOV lanes to get a ticket they could then challenge in court to claim that being pregnant means there was a second person in the car, who just happened to also be inside the woman.

    The discount may be available to anyone who says the words, but the advertisement is an appeal to Christians as a client base – it’s a validation of Christian beliefs and is a direct marketing to that segment of the consumer population.

    That said, I think companies should be able to market their services as and to whom they want to – within the usual advertising regulations and practices and as long as they are willing to live with the consequences – that is, the owner risks offending segments of the consumer population and they get to complain about the company’s practices

    freedom of speech is not limited to the first speech, but also the response speeches.

    • I’m not extrapolating this Guy’s situation. I am saying I have seen this type of reaction often from skeptics evidenced by the existence of organizations that are dedicated to removing religion from the public square, from graduations, from sporting events, memorials, etc. Atheists seem to be easily offended by anything religion, and this is just one more example. Just uttering a mere quotation from a bible made this particular non-Christian unsettled. Either this man is so sensitive that he is so easily off-put but something like this, or he is a bigot.

      Lastly, no this is not a discount for Christians. It is a discount for anyone who recites the passage. The owner is not requiring any beliefs about the passage, just its recitation. But, even if it was designed for only Christians, there is absolutely nothig wrong with that either. If this business wants to serve a select set of the population, that is its perogative. I see you agree with this concept, but I hope that still applies when business owners and clergy refuse to cooperate with same-sex marriages and all things associated with them i.e., photographers, reception halls, bed & Breakfast inns, etc.

  4. @ Marshall

    the discomfort in saying such lines is not because athiests are closet believers, we are not and as such, “sin” has no meaning outside of the religion

    simply put, we don’t validate religious belief by giving religious ideas undue consideration

    repeating nonsense is too high a price to pay for a cheap oil change

  5. I don’t support the use of scripture in commerce that way, but I can’t see why anyone would have grounds to complain about not getting the discount.

    Hey, I’ll gladly quote the Koran to get more than 50% off. Then I’ll explain why the Koran is wrong and why Jesus is the only way to salvation! It would be win-win for me!

  6. TerranceH says:

    If this is Constitutional – and if so, then barely – so be it; the business can do what it wants. But I would never patron the joint and would in fact beat the streets to put them out of business.

    Businesses should be secular. It shouldn’t be required that they are, but as a business man, I know it’s just good business to be so. It’s stupid to take sides in religion or politics as a business, because you run the risk of alienating customers.

    I think it’s discriminatory. A Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or non-believer shouldn’t have to recite a Christian belief in order to get the discount. That simply shouldn’t be the discount.

    It’s likely entirely legal, but wrong nonetheless.

    That nonsense might play in Texas but it wouldn’t up here, I promise. The business would be under in a month…

  7. “existence of organizations that are dedicated to removing religion from the public square, from graduations, from sporting events, memorials, etc”

    You are confusing “public” with “government.” Government officials, and by extension those appointed by government officials to speak (students at graduation and school sporting events) as well as memorials, placards, and displays put up by government officials, are expressions of government religion and as such entangle government with religion. Make sure to distinguish between religion in public by private citizens, which is not challenged, and religion presented by government-appointed speakers or government-approved displays, which which is rightly challenged.

    • I see the distinction you are trying to make, but it is not one that was made by any justice, legislator, or government official prior to the 1960s. A student praying is not “by extension” the government. And there are organizations who want religion out of every public view.

  8. I beleive business are entitled to serve the segment they want, but that doesn’t mean they get to exclude anyone seeking their services or goods.

    Anyone who provides a good or service to the public, may not cherry pick or deny services – businesses are not entitled to discriminate against people.

    and you are also grossly misrepresenting the groups and individuals who are holding religion accountable for intrusions into the public square

    worse, characterizing religion as something vulnerable and in need of protection, when it’s mainstream and the source of more than it’s share of discrimination, disharmony and violence in the world.

    • Well, I disagree. any business owner should be permitted to exclude anyone they wish for any reason. Is it good business practice that would lead to success? Not likely. But since when is it someone obligation to be a good businessman?

      If I don’t like people named Mike, I sould be able to refuse goods and services to anyone named Mike. Same goes for religion, race, or sex. If someone wants to lose the business of a particular segment of the population, that is on them, it is their business, their money, their investment.

  9. “I see the distinction you are trying to make, but it is not one that was made by any justice, legislator, or government official prior to the 1960s. A student praying is not “by extension” the government. And there are organizations who want religion out of every public view.”

    Well they didn’t make that distinction unless they were writing the Constitution… but whatever we may quibble about with that, it is an important and valid distinction to make and Justices these days rightfully recognize the difference. And a student praying over a public school loudspeaker at a public school sports event or graduation is, as long as they are on that loudspeaker, representing the government.
    I’m familiar with and in contact with basically every atheist and humanist organization and none of them “want religion out of every public view.” At best, they’d prefer people in general had no use for religion, but they would never advocate for legislated censorship of private speech, only that government speech should be fit to the business of the government official or agency rather than intended to promote the speaker’s personal religious beliefs through a government amplifier.

  10. T, not to worry. You’re correct that separation of church and state is for everyone. You’ll probably be a better Christian for realizing it, but if you get shoved out by the Christians, the humanists will be happy to have you. More likely the non-political Christians will give you a good home first.

  11. Hahaha! This reminds me of a story about a viking chief who had been christened several times, but after the eight one he said he would not attend anymore, since the linen shirts handed out in christenings, were of poorer quality than when he started.

    Some atheists might have personal emotional reasons not to support religious ideals by recitign particular verses, but I think, if this sort of commercialism would become wide spread most harmed would be the representatives of different religions. I for one could recite anything for discount, but would rather choose some busines that does not require me to recite anything.

    Why did this guy in your story not take his car somewhere else? Because he was stoopid? Statistically skepticks are more clever than religious people, but there are of course also us simple guys among skeptics too.

    Discrimination is a serious matter. Are you John Barron jr, actully saying companies should have the right to discriminate their customers according to race? You wrote: “If I don’t like people named Mike, I sould be able to refuse goods and services to anyone named Mike. Same goes for religion, race, or sex.” This must be a joke, right? Or are you actually so conservative, that you think legal system, societal morals, and society in general should be reversed to the early sixtees? They could make business run smoothily without the black people in same stores as whites, but that sort of segragation twists and poisons the society?

    • He could take his car anywhere for an oil change. He wasn’t targeted or oppressed. He could have received a discount but chose stubbornness instead.

      And no, I’m not joking. I think business owners should be allowed to discriminate for any reason. I do not think it is good business practice, or that it is morally right. But someones business is their money, their time, their investment. Who are you or I to tell them who they MUST do business with?

  12. So, in businesswise you are actually ultra liberal?

    Society sets norms on all our actions, and business does not differ from any other behaviour in that if it is considered harmfull must be controlled. Segragation is very harmfull to any society, and therefore a modern society tries to minimize it, by setting rules even for businesses.

    For example, if a chemical factory starts to produce chemical weapons and sell them to anyone, it is their money, time and investment, but we as societies have set rules and regulations against it, right? Similarly, if a business starts to promote racism there should be rules against it.

  13. Terrance H. says:

    Why do you say that, John? Because I’ve taken a Left turn? I can’t tell if you’re right.

    I will say I don’t know what to believe anymore, but I go through this every couple of years; an existential period, if you wish. I won’t say I become an atheist, because truth be told, I don’t; I become an agnostic. But I always find my way back to the simple sense.

    Regardless, my faith has always been private, and so even as a strong believer I would express similar sentiments. I don’t “make a show of religion before men.”

  14. John, it appears you and I are of the same mind on this. Below is what I posted on Facebook about the article.
    A customer said “Why should I be compelled to quote something I do not feel comfortable to quote? I’m paying you. Why can’t you treat me like others?”

    1. Why are you uncomfortable quoting a simple scripture?
    2. Why do you believe you are entitled to a discount when you refuse to fulfill the requirements? The business was not required to offer a discount to anyone.
    3. You are getting treated like others who do not recite the scripture. If you want to get treated like those who recite the scripture, recite the scripture.
    4. A moralizing lawyer said the discount is legal but believes the conversation about faith could have been started in a different manner. This is simply an attempt to make people shut up about their faith. The attorney said “The study of the Bible has many rewards. I’m not sure that God intended a lube discount to be among its many riches.” The Apostle Paul would beg to differ with him. Paul became all things to all men that he might win some. He used what he had at his disposal for preaching the Word. (The altar to the unknown god in Athens. Acts 17:23) This lawyer in the story has a small view of God.
    Wei’s abandoning reason for madness is in the same way people who behave homosexually argue that they are being discriminated against because of prohibitions on same-sex marriage. The fact is they can marry a member of the opposite sex just like everyone else and those who are married are likewise prohibited from marrying members of the same sex. There is no equal protection violation.

    • It really is poor thinking on Wei’s part. There is a direct parallel between Wei saying “why can’t you treat me like the others?” and advocates of same-sex marriage. It’s not equal treatment they want, it’s different treatment. All the rules apply, and that is exactly Wei’s complaint — that the rules are applied equally.

  15. I cant help it, but your claim about similar treatment of homosexuals sounds just like if a black person had once asked why can she not sit on the same bus seat as the white person, you would have answered she has the equal right to sit on the seats preserved for the black people. As if the fact that she did not have to stand would have made all the difference.

    It is not that complicated and for sure should not be so hard to understand, that it is not the same right for them to marry a person of the opposite sex. No more so, than if the society would only allow you to marry a person of the same sex. Would you abide to that? The law that says marriage is only between different sexes has a long tradition, but it does not make it any more ethical. Genoside has a long tradition also, and is sanctioned by a god, hut is not ethical either. There is an obvious injustice.

    In the case of Mr.Wei, it is sounds questionable, that a businessman would start to segragate his customers by creed. If he would do it based on race, or land of origin, it would be harsh segregation and certainly represent a harm to the society. What we call apartheid. You do agree with me, that apartheid was not a good thing?

    • Race and sexual desire are not the same at all, you are beginning with a false comparison. Second, you are right about the policy about blacks could sit in certain seats and whites others. And that was the business’s perogative. It was a bad choice, and not one built on a righteous view of morality, but it was up to the business nonetheless. The policies and that of the infamous Woolworth’s lunch counter were remedied by public pressure, not legislation. Both the bus companies and Woolworths changed their segrigation policies because of free market actions. This is the point. If businesses have policies that are considered offensive to a significant portion of the consumer base, the policies will change when the dollars fail to roll in.

      The service station owner in this situation didnt segrigate anyone. The normal cost is what it is. He decided to offer a discount for anyone — regardless of race, ethnicity, religious background, gender, or marital status — who would recite a particular Bible phrase. It could have been any phrase. Would you claim discrimination if the phrase was “John Barron is the most honest and handsome man in the world“? Would it make you uncomfortable to say it if you didn’t believe it? Would it be discrimination if you didn’t get the discount because you were uncomfortable saying something you didn’t believe was true? Or is it exactly what I think it is, religious/Christian bigotry. If you wouldn’t have a problem saying “John Barron is the most honest and handsome man in the world” even though you don’t believe it, but you do have a problem reciting John 3:16 because you don’t believe it, then you are a religious bigot.

      It would be easier to take you seriously if you didnt equate coupon policies with apartheid.

  16. I basically agreed with you until your last two paragraphs.
    I agree that the store owner should be able to ask them to repeat the Qu’ran, the Bhagavadgita or the Bible for a discount. It is his business, end of story.
    Well, I can see some problems. What if he asked him to read but he can’t read. Or asked him to quote but he can’t talk. But let’s not sidetrack on that, because I basically agree with you.

    But your last two paragraphs were a completely different point. You were speculating on WHY he resisted. That is much risker grounds.

    If I was in front of a Christian church showing a gorgeous sweat which I would sell for only $5 and all members raised their hands to pay. But then I told them it use to belong to a serial killer, I wager most people would not want it. Now Christians shouldn’t believe like some Hindus and some Jains that back karma (or bad luck, or bad JuJu) can stick to immaterial items. But their essentialist intuition does make them feel that way. This would happen in a skeptic crowd too, I wager — no matter how “rational” they may think they are.

    So, I am not defending Skeptics as being rational vs. Christians — as you know from my blog, we are all irrational.

    But imagine this scenario now: A man is giving a discount for the same Oil Change in Israel but his demand is that the buyer be able to whistle some Wagner — the artist Hitler loved and who use to be outlawed in Israel (but now legal I think — well, make it legal for this thought experiment.)

    Older Jews for reasons of pride, bad memory, subjugation to majority and many more negative emotions would rather pay more that honor Wagner even though they are just notes.

    It is not because the skeptic really believes in a dual-god call Yahweh-Jesus (oops, forgot how to sneak the third person in there — but you get my point). I just doesn’t like all the things associated with the fable much like the Jew not wanting to whistle Wagner.

    Well, at least, as a skeptic, that is how I could imagine the feelings. Certainly the skeptic is being emotional and not logical. But emotions are not bad things.

    BTW, I would boycott the guy unless no one else offered that price, they I’d gladly recite it — but my tone would be hilariously irreverent!

  17. “Race and sexual desire are not the same at all, you are beginning with a false comparison.”
    It’s a great comparison. Race and sexual orientation are both natural traits of a person that are neither wring nor subject to change. Sexual orientation, with respect to love, not just lust, is recognized by everyone except a small subset of the population who interpret their scripture in such a way as to reject evidence contrary to the false accusation that homosexuality is wrong.
    It would be easier and in many cases less destructive to make a white man look and act black or vice versa than it would be to make a gay person act straight or vice versa.

  18. John Barron Jr is the most honest and handsome man in the world!!! I do not know if this is true, but I am ready to recite it, even if I am not getting anything in return. If you read my former comment, you know, I am also ready to recite any biblical note to get a discount. So it is not a personal issue to me. Like Neil said, I do not have to believe something to say it. But there are a lot of people who feel saying something to be offensive.

    It was you John, who brought up the idea of similarity between race, sex or religious identity in segragating customers, not I. I did not refer to this case as serious, but when you brought up the idea that businesmen have the right to segragate their customers according to race, sex or creed, that is a nother matter.

    There is a lot of legistlation against harmfull business, is there not? Slavery was a good business, untill they set a law against it. Markets do not repair all social injustices, not by far. On the contrary, they produce multitudes of them. In a democratic society it is the job of the government to restrict such as much as possible.

  19. @Rautakyy

    First, slavery cannot be compared to discriminatory business practices. You have committed the reductionist fallacy, which is reducing two things down to something they have in common and then treating them as equals. Slavery is not a business. Slavery is a practice that businesses used. Slavery is the involuntary detention of people for their labor. People were held against their will to pick cotton, etc. Blacks were not required to use the bus or eat lunch at Woolworth’s.

    Second, government has the obligation to protect someone’s life, liberty and property. It does not have an obligation, and maybe not the authority, to prevent discrimination in business. The federal government, especially, does not have the authority to tell a business it cannot discriminate. The government is required to make sure the law applies equally. It does not have the authority to make sure everyone treats everyone else equally. That is totalitarianism. I would prefer to live in an imperfect country that gives me choices to buy from businesses that do not discriminate but allows discriminatory businesses to operate than in a country that uses the threat of government violence to make sure my business behaves.

  20. @ John
    Your last reply to me was:

    Well, I can admit I muddled my points. I am heading out right now, and I will clarify either later tonight or tomorrow.

    Then you never responded to my comment.

    • Yes, I mingled the two pieces of the commentary. One was about the actual incident, and the other was about many skeptics who seem to be offended by religion [Christianity]. So when someone says they are uncomfortable reciting a religious passage, that tells me one of two things: Either Wei is such a religious bigot that he cant stomach religious writ, or he was of another religion and was not comfortable with reciting the verse for his own religious conscience’s sake. I am willing to bet it is the latter in his case. However, for many skeptics, it is the former, which is why I wrote it the way I did.

  21. Well, Dogtags, in your definition my native Finland is a totalitarian country. Who would have guessed? You see, we have laws against discrimination (racial, cultural or handicap). Those laws are to protect the liberties of citizens from discriminatory business practices.

    Call it what you will, but slavery was a business, for it had no other particular purpose than to make money for the owners. If I am not greatly mistaken, that is the meaning for the word business.

    Yes, I have reduced both slavery and discrimnation to the the cause that is incommon to them – segragation. That is what is wrong about both of them. The fact that some people have taken the right to mistreat other people because they are different.

    • Slavery was not a business, slave trading was. Some businesses used slave labor rather than salaried labor.

      The business owner did not mistreat anyone here. A discount was offered for anyone who fulfilled the terms. That is what you are missing. No one was segregated, no one was discriminated against, anyone who recited the passage got a discount they were otherwise not entitled to.

  22. John, I addressed your concern about being a “Religious Bigot” in my comment. And as you often do, you did not respond to it at all.

    I am seeing a pattern in your responses — avoiding direct questions. I am not sure if it is intentional or if you just can’t hear what is being said no matter how plainly put.

  23. @John Barron Jr, this is getting ridiculous. How could there be slave trading without slavery? Slave trading is just as bad as any other form of slavery and we were talking about the commercial forms of injustice. Splitting hairs on sematics does not change the facts.

    Have you not read any of my comments? I said segragation is what unifies slavery and discrimination. I was referring to your comment about racial discrimination being OK by a business.

    I hope you do not claim I am off topic when I am not considering your orignal post, but how you commented?

    • @Rautakyy

      You aren’t off topic, per se, but you’re beating a dead horse with the same irrelevant objection. First you keep equating salvery with the slave trade. It seems to be a big deal to you which is why I keep trying to get you to see the difference between free labor, and selling people for the purposes of free labor. I read your comments but you are trying to make some correlation between this guy offering a discount for someone reciting John 3:16 and slavery. It is an asinine comparison, so I’m not going to indulge such a rediculous idea.

  24. Sabio

    What is your direct question exactly?

  25. It keeps being asked, ‘but what if the discount required…” and then inserting something someone cannot do. There is a difference between asking someone to do something they cannot do, and something they will not do. But even still, as unreasonable as it is, it is the perogative of the owner who is under no obligation to offer any discount at all. If it were the case that he were selectively giving the discount to people who recited it, then all the objectors here have a point. But as long as anyone recited and gets the discount, your objection is an unreasonable burden on how a person can do with their property as they wish.

Any Thoughts?

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: