Taco Bell and LOGOS.COM

I stopped into my local Taco Bell this afternoon before our 2:00 PM service. I found that the forum site (in fact, all of LOGOS.COM) is blocked. After discussing this with the manager, I discovered that their corporate policy is to block all "religious" and "political" sites. Except it is only partially true. I could not connect with the following sites:

logos.com
community.logos.com
moody.edu
biblegateway.com

The following sites were accessible:

liberty.edu
roberts.edu
www.democrats.org

When I told the manager that not all sites were blocked, he told me, "I'll tell the GM that not all sites are being blocked."

Something seems out of whack here - am I missing something? Does my attitude need an adjustment?

A couple of comments:

I stumbled on this while trying to see what had been posted to the LOGOS forums over night.
Sites not listed above were not tested - so I cannot speak for other religious sites or other political sites.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

GaoLu

Edit: Merry Christmas.

James Hiddle

That's how some businesses operate. They block anything that is related to porn(good for them)games,politics(don't know about that one but it wouldn't surprise me)and even religion.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672241#Comment_672241

I suspect Taco Bell didn't like people downloading the massive update from their lobby

The McDonald's near me has a hard 30 minute time limit that you're allowed to be in the restaurant, and only 30 minutes if you're actively eating.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672241#Comment_672241

None of this is really that unusual. You'll find it in wifi available from other places. There's workarounds for tech savvy users. My preference is to simply patronize places that don't act like the First Amendment is subject to corporate policy. Or let them try to tell me to leave if my Pitt Minion ESV is offending some lug nut customer.

FWIW, I do more than a small share of study and reading at the golden arches. So far no problems.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672248#Comment_672248

Our McDonalds has a two hour limit - but it is renewable without any problem. I also spend many hours at McDonalds, Bares & Noble, and Panerad - I have never seen anything like this.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672253#Comment_672253

I have never seen anything like this.

I expect it will probably get worse. God is still on the throne but our mission field is to change hearts not to change corporate policy. The latter is like Egypt after Joseph.

Rene Atchley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672256#Comment_672256

It's a private business that has the right to function in any or all ways they feel appropriate. While it might be offensive it seems like a small issues for a couple of taco's I guess.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672264#Comment_672264

Best Buy routinely blocks religious sites including Logos' sites.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672264#Comment_672264

It's a private business that has the right to function in any or all ways they feel appropriate.

This is true. If we don't like it we don't have to eat there.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672280#Comment_672280

It's a private business that has the right to function in any or all ways they feel appropriate.

This is true. If we don't like it we don't have to eat there.

Already let my wife know this is true.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672286#Comment_672286

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672286#Comment_672286

Let your money speak for you. But I would make it a point to talk with the manager and let him know that I will not be coming back because they have chosen to block "religious".

It is sad that sites in the USA are blocked, but here in Kyrgyzstan I can go to many wifi cafe and use the internet connect and check on logos and have a coffee. The manager does not care what i am reading, as a paying customer.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672295#Comment_672295

Our McDonalds does not have this kind of sign. For most of last year, after losing my drivers license due to a seizure problem, I often spent 8+ hours at our local store preparing sermons and writing book reports. The management and I became friends, had significant conversations, prayers, etc. On at least one occasion I had to call 911 when an older couple fell backwards off the curb. Now that I have my license back, I still spend time at McDonalds, but divide my time with the other businesses mentioned in my earlier post.

Other than the unwritten two-hour (but renewable) limit at McDonalds, I have seen no limitations on my internet use. It may be common elsewhere, but not in upstate NY. As a friend said on Facebook, Taco Bell's decision is disappointing.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672302#Comment_672302

I agree that its disappointing. Just not particularly surprising. out of habit, I have a proxy set up on my laptop for when I'm using public wifi any way.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672309#Comment_672309

I live next to a Taco Bell so I took my laptop there to confirm your findings, but it seems the signal strength there is insufficient to be able to access ANY website.

Rosie Perera

Chain stores are more likely to have corporate policies like this than independent establishments. I have discovered a lovely cafe that serves breakfast all day long and lets me sit there with my laptop for as long as I want after I've finished my food. I do make sure to buy a real meal and not just a coffee, so I'm not taking too much advantage of their largess. But it's a much nicer atmosphere than a fast food joint (e.g., Taco Bell) and even than most chain coffee shops. And I like the idea of patronizing local businesses and seeing them stay in business.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672318#Comment_672318

Not from the United States.

Can someone tell me what is the first amendment and what it has to do with fast food chains blocking religious sites?

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672382#Comment_672382

First amendment ensures our right to free speech. Though it ensures this in the context of government. As a capitalist society, if we don't like the censorship of an establishment, we take our business elsewhere.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672383#Comment_672383

First amendment ensures our right to free speech.

To me this is even a greater reason not to block religious websites.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672323#Comment_672323

Chain stores are more likely to have corporate policies like this than independent establishments.

Let us also remember that the decision to provide and/or filter free wifi may be the decision of a FRANCHISEE and not of corporate. Taco Bells around here don't provide wifi at all. I just don't want us to get up in arms about a "corporate" policy when it may actually be a LOCAL policy.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672384#Comment_672384

First amendment ensures our right to free speech.

To me this is even a greater reason not to block religious websites.

Agreed - however - it only protects us from the government's interference into our ability to speak freely. We have to protect ourselves from establishments which seek to do so.

Interestingly Southern Baptists (the denomination I am a part of) were heavily involved with Thomas Jefferson RE this amendment, we also penned, and pushed for it around the country. The thinking being that in a fallen world, it will be better to have all religions banding together to protect free speech, than to have only the Christians; projecting that one day we (in the larger christian sense) may be in the minority. Plus they had just been a part of a country where one type of Christianity had been in charge, and had been bullying those who left (we call them the pilgrims) England and came to what became the USA. Further the "wall of separation" Jefferson talks about - is speaking in reference to protecting the church from government, not vice versa.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672388#Comment_672388

You know, you shouldn't use Logos forums to talk about a third-party company/conglomerate, especially negatively. It could cause some inconvenience. Please take it elsewhere.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672387#Comment_672387

AFAIK this is the case here. Still disappointing.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672388#Comment_672388

For clarification: Thomas Jefferson died 30+ years before the SBC was born.

Abram K-J

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672426#Comment_672426

I don't mean to pry or give unsolicited advice, but as a pastor I can't imagine eating Taco Bell just before a service.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672426#Comment_672426

For clarification: Thomas Jefferson died 30+ years before the SBC was born.

Certainly - but those who worked with Jefferson, discipled the people that went on to found, or lead within the SBC.

Further if I remember right, the churches that were involved with this subsequently went on to become a part of the SBC.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672388#Comment_672388

First amendment ensures our right to free speech.

To me this is even a greater reason not to block religious websites.

Agreed - however - it only protects us from the government's interference into our ability to speak freely. We have to protect ourselves from establishments which seek to do so.

Interestingly Southern Baptists (the denomination I am a part of) were heavily involved with Thomas Jefferson RE this amendment, we also penned, and pushed for it around the country. The thinking being that in a fallen world, it will be better to have all religions banding together to protect free speech, than to have only the Christians; projecting that one day we (in the larger christian sense) may be in the minority. Plus they had just been a part of a country where one type of Christianity had been in charge, and had been bullying those who left (we call them the pilgrims) England and came to what became the USA. Further the "wall of separation" Jefferson talks about - is speaking in reference to protecting the church from government, not vice versa.

It wasn't really the Southern Baptists, but the Danbury (CT) Baptists. Yes, it was designed to protect the churches. The Danbury Bapttists were concerned that the Federal government might interfere in their practice of religion, but Jefferson assured them that would not be the case (hence his "wall of separation." Today, however, some would like to stand that on its head and prohibit religious participation in government when what is stated in the 1st Amendment is that freedom of religion shall not be impaired. The only restriction in that regard was that there was to be no ESTABLISHED church after the style of the Church of England.

BTW: Lee, this is about Logos software since we have the Constitution of the United States as well as the Federalist Papers and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Silver Hawk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672388#Comment_672388

Interestingly Southern Baptists (the denomination I am a part of) were heavily involved with Thomas Jefferson RE this amendment,

Thomas Jefferson? .... Thomas Jefferson?

You really want to choose him as your standard bearer after the hack job he perpetrated and called it a Bible translation. Blasphemy!

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672383#Comment_672383

First amendment ensures our right to free speech.

This is most definitely not a First Amendment issue: These establishments are not interfering with your free speech rights; they are merely limiting your access to someone else's free speech.

We have more serious First Amendment issues in this country than free access to wifi in an eating establishment.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672488#Comment_672488

Everyone has the right to speak. No one has the right to demand that Taco Bell pay for that speech. And no one has the right to demand that me to eat at Taco Bell. Thank God for all of that.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672485#Comment_672485

Interestingly Southern Baptists (the denomination I am a part of) were heavily involved with Thomas Jefferson RE this amendment,
Thomas Jefferson? .... Thomas Jefferson?
You really want to choose him as your standard bearer after the hack job he perpetrated and called it a Bible translation. Blasphemy!

He didn't call it a translation. He used the Authorized Version for his compilation. It was basically a précis of Jesus' moral system. We have many such works which deal with biblical subjects in one area. I think your opposition to Jefferson is misplaced. There are many with whom I disagree (some of which I would consider really blasphemous) in one area or another, but that doesn't mean that I throw out everything they ever wrote.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672493#Comment_672493

There are many with whom I disagree (some of which I would consider really blasphemous) in one area or another, but that doesn't mean that I throw out everything they ever wrote.

If we did we would have very thin libraries.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672488#Comment_672488

First amendment ensures our right to free speech.

This is most definitely not a First Amendment issue: These establishments are not interfering with your free speech rights; they are merely limiting your access to someone else's free speech.

We have more serious First Amendment issues in this country than free access to wifi in an eating establishment.

agreed - was just explaining.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672485#Comment_672485

Interestingly Southern Baptists (the denomination I am a part of) were heavily involved with Thomas Jefferson RE this amendment,
Thomas Jefferson? .... Thomas Jefferson?
You really want to choose him as your standard bearer after the hack job he perpetrated and called it a Bible translation. Blasphemy!

No... But certain SBC historians do claim the Danbury Baptist Association as being proto-SBC, and they did in fact work with Jefferson on the first amendment. I'd have to look it up, but IIRC Madison borrowed heavily (my prof said flat plagiarized) a state constitutions amendment that had been penned by a southern (geographically) baptist, who would go on to be a part of the SBC.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672481#Comment_672481

Lee, this is about Logos software since we have the Constitution of the United States as well as the Federalist Papers and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I laughed so hard I had to clean soda off my display. Thanks for that George

Silver Hawk

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672493#Comment_672493

During the Enlightenment period, religious dogma was seriously questioned. Thomas Jefferson was one of America's a leading critics of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Indeed Jefferson's skepticism was so profound that he could not be described as a Christian in the conventional meaning of the word. Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor did he believe that Christ had performed miracles. Jefferson did, however, believe in a "superintending power" in the universe, and that Jesus was a great reformer and moral leader. In one of his many letters to John Adams, Jefferson remarked:

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672384#Comment_672384

Every religion wants religious freedom .... except for the other major religions. I'd suspect the limitations have nothing to do with Christian sites.

James Hiddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672455#Comment_672455

I don't mean to pry or give unsolicited advice, but as a pastor I can't imagine eating Taco Bell just before a service.

Yeah you don't want a pastor eating at Taco Bell,starts his sermon and all of the sudden the choir starts signing behind him and I don't mean the actual choir [:P]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672384#Comment_672384

First amendment ensures our right to free speech.

To me this is even a greater reason not to block religious websites.

Not a US citizen but my understanding is a bar or restaurant has a right to refuse service to anyone they please. So i can not see how banning access to sites (a free service they are offering) is much different than a sign saying no shirt no shoes no service). Could they not argue religious freedom. The owner may be Buddhist and allowing access violates his beliefs. It is a shame that Politics and Religion are being lumped in with Porn, but I know of people who would be more offended by religion than porn. And from all I have seen in US politics it is a particularly divisive thing with plenty of mud slinging on both sides. In Canada I have not encountered these issues, although I have heard of the porn filters being bad in that Breast cancer sights have sometimes been blocked. Indeed when i was having Download issues (i believe due to internet speed issues). I went to my closet Walmart and being that I am handicapped was able to gain access in the parking lot and downloaded 6 GB of Logos updates while i was shopping. Had it been blocked I would not have complained because I understand their possible reasoning. In Canada theses days there is more than a little talk about radicalization of people of the Muslim faith. By blocking all religious sights a restaurant may be seeing themselves as preventing their property and services as being used to commit a crime. Most Muslims are not terrorist, the majority of Christians are not either. But occasionally people use the anonymity of a public wifi to conceal behaviour that is illegal. Before I boycotted a business, I would want to talk to a manager to find out the reasoning behind these actions and if needed what steps they are prepared to take to remedy the situation.

-Dan

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672569#Comment_672569

Not a US citizen but my understanding is a bar or restaurant has a right to refuse service to anyone they please. So i can not see how banning access to sites (a free service they are offering) is much different than a sign saying no shirt no shoes no service). Could they not argue religious freedom. The owner may be Buddhist and allowing access violates his beliefs. It is a shame that Politics and Religion are being lumped in with Porn, but I know of people who would be more offended by religion than porn. And from all I have seen in US politics it is a particularly divisive thing with plenty of mud slinging on both sides. In Canada I have not encountered these issues, although I have heard of the porn filters being bad in that Breast cancer sights have sometimes been blocked. Indeed when i was having Download issues (i believe due to internet speed issues). I went to my closet Walmart and being that I am handicapped was able to gain access in the parking lot and downloaded 6 GB of Logos updates while i was shopping. Had it been blocked I would not have complained because I understand their possible reasoning. In Canada theses days there is more than a little talk about radicalization of people of the Muslim faith. By blocking all religious sights a restaurant may be seeing themselves as preventing their property and services as being used to commit a crime. Most Muslims are not terrorist, the majority of Christians are not either. But occasionally people use the anonymity of a public wifi to conceal behaviour that is illegal. Before I boycotted a business, I would want to talk to a manager to find out the reasoning behind these actions and if needed what steps they are prepared to take to remedy the situation.

-Dan

Okay - let's deny service to the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. They violate my beliefs - let's see how quickly someone screams? Sorry, they may be within their rights, I still think they are wrong.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672569#Comment_672569

Not a US citizen but my understanding is a bar or restaurant has a right to refuse service to anyone they please.

Not quite true. If the prospective customer is a homosexual, you will likely get sued (and they may well win).

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672596#Comment_672596

I still would like to know if this is company wide or just the local franchisee. Regardless, it does cover multiple stores as he/she/it own many restaurants in the Upstate NY area. I will try another Taco Bell in the near future.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672481#Comment_672481

It wasn't really the Southern Baptists, but the Danbury (CT) Baptists. Yes, it was designed to protect the churches. The Danbury Bapttists were concerned that the Federal government might interfere in their practice of religion, but Jefferson assured them that would not be the case (hence his "wall of separation." Today, however, some would like to stand that on its head and prohibit religious participation in government when what is stated in the 1st Amendment is that freedom of religion shall not be impaired. The only restriction in that regard was that there was to be no ESTABLISHED church after the style of the Church of England.

BTW: Lee, this is about Logos software since we have the Constitution of the United States as well as the Federalist Papers and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Can't resist misattributing my comment and a little personal attack, George? Does that make your Founding Fathers proud? Who's smoking what?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672518#Comment_672518

During the Enlightenment period, religious dogma was seriously questioned. Thomas Jefferson was one of America's a leading critics of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Indeed Jefferson's skepticism was so profound that he could not be described as a Christian in the conventional meaning of the word. Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor did he believe that Christ had performed miracles. Jefferson did, however, believe in a "superintending power" in the universe, and that Jesus was a great reformer and moral leader. In one of his many letters to John Adams, Jefferson remarked:

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

So, what's wrong with that? [;)] [:D] I think I just started something—just teasing you.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672248#Comment_672248

I suspect Taco Bell didn't like people downloading the massive update from their lobby

I think this is a significant reason.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672596#Comment_672596

Not a US citizen but my understanding is a bar or restaurant has a right to refuse service to anyone they please.

Not quite true. If the prospective customer is a homosexual, you will likely get sued (and they may well win).

Personally I do not like the idea of a denial of service for any reason. For in the end it is most often a form of prejudice. I have not understood the homosexual customer fuss down there. There money is as good as another persons. Now if they are doing anything illegal that is different. And I have no problem with any couple being asked to cool it or leave if they are being overly affectionate. But we are starting to likely stray into issues to be discussed on Christiandiscourses and not here on the Logos forums.

-Dan

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672690#Comment_672690

I have not understood the homosexual customer fuss down there. There money is as good as another persons. Now if they are doing anything illegal that is different. And I have no problem with any couple being asked to cool it or leave if they are being overly affectionate. But we are starting to likely stray into issues to be discussed on Christiandiscourses and not here on the Logos forums.

Generally the denial of service has to do with what seems to be participation in "gay marriage" which most disagree with on religious grounds since it seems to make one a participant in the act.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672603#Comment_672603

Lee, you need to quit attempting to speed read. If you take the time to read more carefully you will note that only the portion labeled "BTW: …" was addressed to you. I had quoted "abondservant" in the preceding section. Please read more carefully since you aren't very good at speed reading.

James Hiddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672694#Comment_672694

You know maybe Logos as a new feature in Logos 7 have a way to order food from Taco Bell straight from the software [:)]

Ok bad idea [N]

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/672716#Comment_672716

I am at Taco Bell right now and am having no issues accessing any of the mentioned sites. Viva La Logos!