Pizza Christ

"Pizza Christ" by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Pizza Christ” by nakedpastor David Hayward

[Buy the ORIGINAL ART of “Pizza Christ” HERE. Or get an affordable print HERE. Free shipping with code ‘shipit‘!]

I call this “Pizza Christ” in defiance of the Indiana Religious Freedom law that allows business, like pizza joints, to discriminate against gays and not serve them. Here Jesus shares his pizza, and even his own self, with anyone who will receive it.

“This is my body which is broken for all of you.”

Because this pizza joint suffered some threats resulting from its decision to discriminate, it closed its doors and started a GoFundMe campaign. At this point there is over $842,000 raised from over 30,000 donors. Discrimination is alive and well and can even be lucrative.

READ THIS —> Have you or do you suffer discrimination because of your sexuality? Come share your stories at The Lasting Supper. We work hard to make it a safe space to be you!


You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. esbee says:

    I am suffering discrimination of a different kind but it still hurts…in our county and many places in the US vets no longer make farm calls to help suffering horses or cattle. They prefer to treat small animals -less risk and more money. For those of us who love our horses, this feels like a discrimination that will hurt more than just people. When an old horse gets down and needs to be put to sleep or when a horse is down and thrashing with colic and you cannot get a vet, it is a horrible feeling. I think horse owners should unite, parade and get laws made so their rights to be able to do the best for their horses in time of need will not go neglected.

  2. Sabio Lantz says:

    That is a cool subversive take on Jesus.

    I had not heard of the pizza shop — It pays to be misohomonic. [I just coined that word]

    Maybe esbee wants a pic of Jesus puttin’ down a horse, while tons of kittens stand in a long line waiting to be spayed. šŸ˜‰

  3. Caryn LeMur says:

    Esbee: I hear you. Bonnie (my wife) and I are animal lovers, too. We live out in the country among crop farms and tree farms. It would be a horrible feeling to have a large pet and not be able to have a vet visit.

    Vets are part of the free market economy in the US. And it hurts so much when the right to a veterinary service (or the medicine products) is denied to our suffering pets. And of course, we animal lovers have every right to parade, or seek laws to protect the animals under our care.

    Bakers, pizza makers, home mortgage lenders, medical prescription providers, etc. are also part of the free market economy in the US. And, of course, it would hurt deeply for a person to deny me a right to buy a food product, refuse to obtain a home loan or re-finance, or refuse to fill a prescription for an anti-biotic just because their religious beliefs are extended into the free market economy.

    When I was enlisted and officer in our military, I swore to protect the rights of all US citizens, even by killing the enemy or dying. So, on a personal level, I find such human-to-human discrimination a great evil against the LGBT that also served, and were also willing to die for our country.

    Furthermore, as a Follower of Jesus, I am fascinated that Jesus explained the Second Commandment, “Love your neighbor as you wish yourself to be loved”, by using the example of a “Samaritan” providing services and products without discrimination to the person avoided by the religious people. [In the Bible, there is a section called “Luke”. See the Chapter 10, if you wish.]

    I recall that the Samaritan was considered incredible filth and low-life – wrong religion, wrong genetics, wrong life-style, and even so unclean that good conservative religious people would not travel through their living areas. Yet, it was the Samaritan that gave products and services to the wounded person [poured in oil and wine into the wounds; took the wounded to an Inn on his donkey], and then accepted debt (current and future) on behalf of the wounded person.

    The Samaritan that showed no prejudice was closer to God’s heart than the religious that denied hearing the cries of the one that was hurt; that avoided any involvement; that refused goods, services, and time; and that would have denied current or future debt/risk.

    I conclude that those who follow Jesus teachings and example would of course, ignore the evil laws being considered valid in Indiana, and if questioned, would support the example of the Samaritan.

    So, I find myself wondering how we shall protect the veterans that wish products/service, loans, or medicine… and I wonder which religions were being ‘protected’ by this evil law? Surely, not the religion taught by Jesus.

    Unless, they abandoned His teachings in favor of something they worship more….

  4. kris799 says:

    The fear generated by those claiming to know a “peace the surpasses all understanding” is off the charts.

  5. Ducatihero says:

    I read your comment Caryn with interest.

    I too am ex-military and Christian with a heart for veterans.

    I mentor a veteran that is transitioning from the military to civilian life. Your question about protecting veterans is pertinent to that. I find a good starting place is to be a friend. We may be limited in the power we have to influence in the important work of coming against discrimination and in legal battles for the rights of vets, but one thing that we can’t be held back from is in being a friend.

  6. purvez says:

    David, I’m unclear as to which of the following you are critical about?

    1) The Pizza owner’s right to refuse to cater to a Lesbian wedding.

    2) That the Pizza owner has made a ton of money as a result of his appeal on social media.

    The former is no different to a middle aged Jewish restauranteur, with experience of close relatives in concentration camps, refusing to serve a party who arrives dressed in Nazi uniform and goose steps their way around the restaurant whilst doing Heil Hitler salutes. Or would you feel that was inappropriate behaviour of the restauranteur?

    The latter is of course the complete mad state of social media at the current time and deserves derision.

  7. purvez says:

    To avoid any misunderstanding about my comment above, I am not anti LGBT or anything. Just find it difficult to insist on the rights of a group whilst simultaneiously treading on the rights of an individual.

  8. My first concern is that the pizza shop owners can discriminate. My second is that that there is obviously enough support for that to keep them going.

  9. purvez says:

    My own view is that the Pizza owner’s right to refuse is not discrimination but merely following a code of conduct / principles that they believe in. I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of those beliefs, just their right to believe in them and act based upon them.

    The wider view that you mention, whilst admittedly a concern, is just an aggregate of the above single persons right. Sadly reducing those aggregate numbers is quite a task for society.

  10. I disagree. When you open a business to the public, it is my opinion that it is for all the public and is not a private establishment or exclusive club. That’s my opinion.

  11. purvez says:

    We agree to disagree on whether business owners have the right to refuse service. šŸ™‚

  12. purvez says:

    In all the debate I keep missing out saying…..I do love the cartoon!!

  13. Sabio Lantz says:

    @ Purvez & David,
    This argument is a political argument. And I think a tough one.
    For instance, if a nudist group asked the pizza guy to serve at their function, we’d see no problem with them refusing. Or if it were a KKK function, our intuitions may be the same.

    My son is, unfortunately, still repulsed by people with handicaps. If he had a shop, he may refuse to go to a function for people handicapped.

    Should he be able to do that — well, I’d discourage him not to.
    Should the government force people to serve those who they don’t care to associate with, I am less sure.

    Certainly government businesses should be obliged.
    And I would want gays, handicapped cared for — I’d be hesitant to serve KKK and nudists (for different reasons) and wouldn’t want me to have the government with the authority to force to serve them — Just like Purvez’s example of Jews serving Nazi groups.

    So, if you disagree, David, do you have a special list of groups that you can force government to serve? That is the list we need. Or do you really think we must serve anyone who comes to us and requests of us?

    I think it is important to distinguish personal preferences and those we wish to legislate against others by force.

  14. A list of people businesses can discriminate against? Haha. I’m not sure. Does it have something to do with what or who people are beyond choice rather than choice? So, for example, we serve gays because it is who they are and not by choice. (Although we can choose to be who we are, as in, “I’m gay, therefore I choose to be gay!”) Rather than being something by choice, such as Nazis or KKKs. Just a thought.

  15. Sabio Lantz says:

    Right. I’d be for something like that.
    But what about refusing other things like nudist parties and stuff.
    So you’d agree that discriminating is fine — but there are certain groups you’d want to make illegal to discriminate services, right?
    If so, then you might partially agree with Purvez

  16. I saw a meme the other day by a nurse who said that if she can treat a skinhead nazi with hate tattoos all over his body, you can bake a gay person a cake.

  17. Sabio Lantz says:

    But serving a person with Nazi tattoo is different that serving a Nazi convention.
    Do you feel like answering the question on “Should discrimination be OK sometimes?”

  18. mmm don’t like the word discrimination when used in reference to not serving a nazi convention. it has too much legal import for that.

  19. Sabio Lantz says:

    Like the word or not, it is discrimination — and that is what purvez is addressing, I think.
    And I am addressing the fact that legislation on stuff like this is tricky.
    Swedes on one end, Canadians closer to the then US, and US at another end.
    Each systems answers has its problems.
    Easy to say what you’d like to happen, but harder to say exactly what you’d want legislate.

  20. purvez says:

    Sabio, I have this fundamental belief that everyone should have the right to choose what they do, provided they don’t physically harm someone. Whether I agree with their motives for their actions is irrelevant to that right. I know by saying that I’m leaving out ’emotional harm’ which can sometimes be worse than physical, but that is a huge rabbit warren which would require lots of ‘exceptions’. Hence I stick with the general principle.

    I suspect David’s stance on LGBTs colours his view in this particular instance.

    Thanks for chipping in.

  21. Sabio Lantz says:

    @ purvez,
    Yes, I am familiar with your libertarian formula and think I represented you largely accurate above. Though I tend toward libertarian positions myself, I am not kosher or orthodox. Indeed, I am sympathetic with David’s desires but I think his rhetoric is too simple and not seeing behind the complexity of its legislative implications. And I think the libertarian policy gurus would not be happy with the world their purely theoretical models would create.

    Either way, I do agree that keeping personal preferences and legislative preferences clear in our head while we struggle with each other to form our governments or constrain them.

    Through my life I have resisted my government several times in ways that drastically affected my life — so I am not speaking from a theoretical basis myself. We must resist power — both that imposed on us and that which we wish our governments would impose on others. Power is too tempting. Making our preferences the law of the land is a huge temptation.

    I am pretty sure we largely agree.
    I think David speaks largely poetically, rhetorically, and persuasively and is not trying to be legislatively (or even logically) careful or even systematic in his thinking. Just my guess.

  22. You’re right. I mainly draw cartoons and write a small punchy post to reflect the attitude of the cartoon. I’m more articulate when it comes to abuse, bullying, etc., than when it applies to politics, etc.

  23. esbee says:

    Choice should come from both sides. For instance, if I knew that I was going into a business where I was hated for some reason, I would avoid it at all costs. Who knows, in forcing them to serve me, as in bake a cake for me, they might spit in the batter out of spite.

    In real life, a certain restaurant charged my husband for 2 cokes because I took a sip out of his coke (Hot Mexican food!) We chose to never go there again, not because of his charging us, because when asking why, the owner threatened to call the police. For 5 cents sip of coke he has cost himself hundreds of dollars of our business because we have chosen never to go there again and we also tell our friends. And other restaurants have never made a fuss because I take a few sips of my husband’s coke because I cannot finish a whole one.

    That being said, knowing the truth behind the pizzeria owner is important. They were approached by a journalist who asked them their opinion about catering a gay wedding. They offered an answer based on their beliefs. No act of any kind had actually been committed. The media took that answer and reported it as if the business had actually committed the act and stirred up all sorts of trouble and problems for the owners. I am more angry at what the media did then at the opinion of the pizzeria owner.

  24. Bridget says:

    To read comments.

  25. Yasmin says:

    I am a bit distressed that those giving other examples of discrimination liken LGBT people to hate groups, who CHOOSE to be hateful and ugly. The analogy fails completely, because no LGBT person is going to be ugly to store owners, there is no history of LGBT persecution of anyone at all, quite the reverse in fact, and one is born LGBT, it is not a political stance one chooses to take. The analogy fails completely, for all those reasons.

    There is nothing at all in common between the LGBT and hate groups like the KKK or Nazi’s. They could not be more different.