Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Blasphemous "Ale Mary" Bar Owner Uses Racial Slurs?

Update: there will be a peaceful Rosary Procession, starting in front of "Ale Mary's" Bar starting at 2pm and going around the block. All of good will are invited to attend.



1939 Fleet St, Baltimore, MD



[Baltimore, EF] There is a bar in Fells Point, Maryland where sacred objects, some apparently purchased on e-bay, are being used in disrespectful and blasphemous ways by the bar owners and patrons of the bar.



The bar owners maintain in their official statement that these objects have been "de-consecrated". We're not sure how he could know that in the first place since e-bay purchases don't require you to know who the original seller of the objects are.


One commenter on the facebook page "500,000 Against "Ale Mary's" Abuse of the Sacred and the Sublime" noted correctly that the most guilty parties in this transaction are those who sold the articles in the first place. There is an interesting article in the Catholic Encyclopedia which describes a situation where a priest in financial straits sold his breviary (an important prayer book especially for priests) and his silver chalice to a pawn broker. When the priest died, his heirs were charged by the Church to recover the objects under pain of excommunication. There was no mention of whether or not the object was deconsecrated when it was sold. So, it seems as though even when objects are sold to profane parties, like pawnbrokers, or on e-bay, the object in question still retains its blessed status. In fact, the holding of Church property may incur an excommunication, per New Advent:



The twelfth canon of the Œcumencal Council of Lyons (1274) pronounces excommunication ipso facto against those lay persons who seize and detain the temporal possessions of the Church (see Friedberg, "Corpus Juris", II, 953 and 1059) and the Council of Trent followed suit in its Sess. XXII (De ref. C. xi) by launching excommunications latæ sententia against those who usurped many different kinds of ecclesiastical property.




Since the owners identify themselves as "brought up Catholic" it might be that such excommunications do not cause them any fear, but it does implicate them in an ecclesiastical crime, in addition to their violation of positive divine law, or more precisely the 2nd Commandment.


Tom Rivers has claimed in various interviews he's given to the national press that he bears no malice to those who are concerned about the blasphemy taking place in his bar. It would be an encouraging sign if that were the case, but it's a lie. The owner has accused the one individual who's made the complaint of being a liar and those who are concerned about his transgressions as having a "screw loose" or "cowards". He even went so far as to spend the money, or illegally obtain the information through other sources, to check on the financial status of protest members.


Obviously such statements like this are not the mark of a person who wishes well or "doesn't care":


Sucks don't it jen!!! Go back to your little post the other day with pic of the
menu box outside. Sounds familiar doesn't it?? And I own the place... I have put
my time in behind the bar, I shake hands and kiss babies now. My time is my own
to do with what I like. I pay my bills unlike some people that we have here in
this thread. I wont say who ... It's not you though jen.



Yet it's not just Tom River's rudeness, and alarmingly rude behavior, it's his apparent penchant for using racial slurs and attacking his customers and using a racial slur. This review which we found on the restaurant review site Urban Spoon appeared on March 8th 2011. It's strange that more hasn't been made of it, but the description sounds remarkably like the brash and arrogant work of the Tom Rivers. At this point, we've contacted the reviewer "CraigOlney" who made the review. It certainly sounds a lot like the bar's owner and many of its patrons:




What an awful experience at this place, some friends said to check it out, so myself and a couple people did. Well, after waiting for over 30 minutes for someone to wait on us, a server did come by to get us drinks, that took another 25 minutes, we asked to speak with the manager, well a stocky man with a head way too big for his body came out to say he was the owner, he told us that if we didn't like the way he runs his bar at his own pace then we can go "F" ourselves, then tells us that we had better not think about taking one step outside without paying or he will have us thrown in jail with all the "N's". So, we dropped our cash, had to hold back my one buddy from knocking him out, and left. Worst experience ever in a Baltimore establishment, this guy is a blatant racist and should have his bar shut down. What an eyesore on Baltimores great restaurants. Never will myself or anyone I know spend a dime with that bigot.


Comments closed till further notice because of the ill-will and hatred spewing forth by close-minded patrons, and probably the owner too.



This review has been in existence since 2011. Apparently, it's stood the test of time, and it certainly does create a strikingly accurate portrait of the owner and his insensitivity to minorities. I'm sure the people he allegedly assaulted weren't black too. He apparently only attacks people who won't fight back.

73 comments:

  1. No surprise here, let's watch all his patrons defend racism as well as they defended blasphemy and Catholic bigotry. We're waiting...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We aren't (at least I'm not) defending racism. I'm defending journalistic integrity. (this is a re-post, since my last response was deleted).

      Delete
    2. Hmm, sounds like an oxymoron to me.

      Fox News openly lied when they said they contacted Genevieve for a comment last week.

      Journalistic Integrity?

      Delete
    3. Two wrongs do not make a right.

      Delete
    4. This isn't a wrong and it isn't gossip. How about harassing Tom for telling everyone he can that I am a liar and that I accused him of stealing- neither of which are true. You want to talk about slander then start with him. He and I did speak on the phone, although he is telling everyone we didn't. And in the message I left for him I specifically said that I was *not* accusing him of stealing but that the people who donated the items may have stolen them. Go take your lie hunting to his doorstep.

      Delete
    5. The definition of gossip is spreading damning information without proof. How is this not gossip? And I'm not talking about Tom right now. I'm talking about the author of this blog. What happened to "Turn the other cheek?" This seems like "Well, he did it first."

      Delete
    6. The burden of proof is not upon Mr. Rivers or anyone else to prove the items in question weren't stolen, which is an all but impossible task. The burden of proof is upon the accuser to prove the items were stolen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proof.
      The person who says s/he spoke with Rivers on the phone suggests that the items donated to him may have been stolen, which is apparently supposed to be justification for rejecting said items. If I played this mentality to its extremes, you couldn't accept any charitable donation from anyone that wasn't personally made before your eyes, for virtually anything aside from something titled with a serial number could be "stolen property" or "ill-gotten money."

      Delete
    7. Innocent until proven guilty. It's part of the foundation of our country. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

      Delete
    8. This message sent be a disgruntled customer is proof which does have some substantiation, considering that Mr. Rivers has been similarly insensitive to Catholics, but your homespun definition of "gossip" leaves out some important elements of tale bearing, namely malice, necessity and relevance.

      It's necessary to point this out, because if the report is true, it may be that Mr. Rivers committed a crime in violation of the civil rights of other bar patrons who might have been offended by the use of a racial slur. In any case, if it is true, it also substantiates the complaints against Mr. River's bigoted treatment of Catholics.

      I think the report on Urban Spoon is credible for two reasons: 1) Mr. Rivers often verbally attacks people in this manner and has a vulgar temperament. 2) Why would a customer write to complain about Mr. Rivers ill treatment of them when they could be identified by their isp and face some sort of legal action from Mr. Rivers for making an untrue statement? 3) People don't just make this stuff up. 4) I've seen people fired from their jobs, notably Catholic priests for example, for far less than what Mr. Rivers is accused of doing here.

      Delete
    9. People do just make this stuff up. And Prejudice doesn't work that way. I know plenty of people who are racist and religious. I know people who are fine with the blacks but hate the gays. I know people who are fine with gays and blacks but hate Mexicans. Just because he has been insensitive to Catholics, doesn't mean he hates black people. That is a leap. You may find the review credible, but it still isn't proof.

      Delete
    10. I didn't say he should give them back because tehy may have been stolen, I was simply appealing to his charity towards the church. He should give them back because they are Holy and Sacred. I am explaning to you the lie he has invented about me accusing him of stealing.
      Gossip is rumor of personal/private affairs. His business manner with customers is not personal or private.

      Delete
    11. Semantics. You're spreading things that are unsubstantiated.

      Delete
    12. Oh, you mean prejudice only works the way you want it to?

      I think Thomas Rivers likely use of hate speech and his continuing hate speech is pretty offensive.

      Delete
    13. Come on, man. We all agree that hate speech is offensive, and should not be tolerated. But you need facts and proof. No court in this country would convict the man of a hate crime simply because he is mean and because one anonymous poster on Yelp made an allegation.

      Delete
    14. Wrong, I've got facts and proof that Tom is an anti-Catholic bigot according to the very unfair and unequally applied PC hate speech laws.

      That he appears to have offended a protected class of people just makes it easier for me to portray him for what he is.

      Delete
    15. I leave the making of unsubstantiated and inflammatory remarks to you, Mr. Wolt.

      Delete
  2. I don't think anyone is defending the owners as people, in fact, some of the people in the counter group can't stand him. People are defending his right to decorate his bar however he sees fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there's a common causality between the man's churlish and bigoted behavior and how he's offending Catholics.

      Delete
    2. You've never met the man but have no problem bearing false witness. The whole group of you are disgusting liars.

      Delete
    3. Actually, it's demonstrable that this is blasphemy. The bar owners and patrons haven't provided any other evidence against this than to say that "they've been raised Catholics" and "it's all in fun". Then they proceed to attack the people who have the objections in the most hateful ways, so hateful that it really substantiates the initial concern.

      I'm not sure what you people think you are accomplishing, but Tom Rivers did indeed call someone on the group a liar, and it's not true. That's slander. It's making an untrue statement about someone in public.

      Delete
    4. Your group has also been hateful. I was accused of bestiality by one of your own. I was told that I have a mental disorder and that my consenting adult relationship is somehow just as bad a child abuse.

      I'm not saying that Tom is innocent, but you can stop pretending your group is a bunch of innocent victims.

      Delete
    5. We're not going to discuss your issues, Andy. I will grant that sodomy may be important to you, but it's not important to most of the people who read this blog.

      Delete
    6. It's not an issue for me. I'm just saying that there has been hate speech from your side too. And claims of bestiality are blatantly lies.

      Delete
    7. As a matter of fact, I have seen frivolous hate speech accusations, far more frivolous than a documented customer complaint, destroy people's lives.

      Let's see if this dog hunts, shall we?

      Delete
    8. Not going to address the hate coming from your side of the argument? It's not one sided, buddy. And please don't call me a dog.

      Delete
    9. I'm not your buddy, Mr. Wolf, nor do I think you're capable of understanding the points I'm making.

      The expression, "dog that hunts" is a reference to the mere allegations of hate speech which have been enough in other cases to destroy or harry far better men than Thomas Rivers.

      Delete
    10. So you're allowed to complain about the hate coming from my side, but I'm not allowed to point out that your side is also slinging hate? I do not have sex with animals and I do not molest children. Those are heinous accusations.

      Delete
    11. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. How is this any different from the bigotry you are getting? How is racism any different than homophobia?

      Delete
    12. Mr. Walt, I've treated you with more courtesy than you have any right to expect. Kindly leave off with doing what you're accusing the author of doing and stop making hearsay statements. I haven't seen any of these statements you're suggesting that were made by "my" group, but considering the level of reading comprehension you've demonstrated so far, I'd say that you are incapable of understanding it.

      A "dog that hunts" is a credible accusation of a racial slur made by the owner of the bar Tom Rivers.

      Let's not continue this discussion, which you seem determined to turn into an unwanted discussion about your sexual preference.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  3. To the author of this blog:

    I know you will be the only one to see this, since you will no doubt delete before anyone else can see it. That's ok. This is directed at you. Where is your integrity? It is wrong to accuse a man of something like using slurs with only hearsay to back you up, just because you're mad at the guy. Then, when people come in to comment and ask for proof, you delete their comments. You deleted everyone's comment except Amanda's implying that people who disagree with you support racism and are cowards. That is manipulating facts, sir. You have made an allegation based on no facts, then censored any kind of debate here in the comments. I know that the internet is no-man's-land where anyone can say anything they want, but you should have personal integrity. As a religious man, you should know right from wrong. Not just when it comes to sin, but common decency. I want you to know that what you have done today, here, in this blog is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Apparently, Tom Rivers can say and do anything he likes, insult anyone he wants and allegedly insult an entire race of people, but that courtesy isn't extended to others.

      I find the review in Urban Spoon credible. Sorry.

      Delete
    3. No, he can't. But I need proof before I condemn him for racism. If you have more proof, you should share it. Right now, based on what you have shared, your argument is "That guy on Yelp said so, and I know Tom isn't very nice, so it is probably true." Until you know, you're spreading gossip. And what about deleting all those comments (except the one)? If Tom Rivers went around censoring people who disagree with him, I'd call him out too.

      Delete
    4. No, my argument is and still remains that Tom Rivers is defaming sacred objects and Catholic doctrine.

      He's also a slandering and malicious individual who has no respect for people and apparently, he also seems to be insensitive to African Americans as well.

      Delete
    5. I will concede to the fact that he is defaming objects that are sacred to you. I am not arguing that he is a nice person. Do you have proof that he is slandering people? Do you have proof that he is using racial slurs? If not, again, I say you are spreading gossip. If you have proof that he is using such slurs, I will concede that he is racist.

      Delete
    6. He is an alleged racist and an anti-Catholic Bigot. Why would it be surprising that an anti-Catholic bigot would also make racial slurs?

      It's sad that you don't see how much alike the two cases are.

      Delete
    7. "It's sad that you don't see how alike the two cases are." And now we are into personal attacks? We were having a nice debate. Oh well. I hope you don't twist your ankle jumping to those conclusions.

      Delete
    8. How is that a personal attack? I'm merely pointing out that you seem incapable of seeing how using the N-word and the blasphemy taking place at this part are in the same category.

      Delete
    9. "You seem incapable of seeing..." Statements like that go from a point/counter-point debate to you telling me I am dumb. Bigotry is not all-encompasing. A lack of respect for the church doesn't mean he hates black people. That is a pretty big jump.

      Delete
    10. You're pretty thin-skinned then, because a lot of people are offended by what the patrons of this bar are doing, and objectively speaking it constitutes a serious offense against Catholic moral law with penalties of excommunication latae sententiae for the bar owners.

      In any event, if it's not convenient for you to see these obvious connections and why Tom River's insensitive and callous behavior to Catholics, not just me, it doesn't matter, it's pretty obvious to others.

      Delete
    11. No there aren't alot of people offended, this group of losers with nothing better to do all day long and thats it.

      Delete
    12. I'm not arguing with you about the whole chalice thing. You're spreading fanning rumors with no proof. That is gossip.

      Delete
    13. The whole, "chalice thing" as you call it is the initial concern. The fact that Thomas Rivers is accused of using a racial slur by one of his patrons is an established fact and it substantiates the overall tenor of the man's insensitivity and callousness, since is credible by the overall tenor of the man's antics on Facebook and the way he misrepresented his statements when he was interviewed by Fox Baltimore as having nothing against those protesting his bar.

      Delete
    14. What's the title of this blog post? This blog post is about him using a racial slur. I'm arguing about your unsubstantiated claims about him using racial slurs. If you can provide proof, I will gladly acknowledge it.

      Delete
    15. I did provide proof, that you reject it makes no difference to me.

      Delete
    16. Hearsay is not proof. Check any court in America.

      Delete
    17. Tell that to thousands of Catholic priests who've been convicted on that and nothing more.

      Like or not, taken in tow with the other evidence of Tom River's other insulting deeds and remarks, it looks like it's a credible accusation.

      Have a nice day, this conversation is at an end.

      Delete
    18. Considering the accusations of Catholic priests, I would think you would be more sensitive to the damage that rumors can do.

      Delete
    19. These aren't rumors. Tom Rivers has made statements on FB that were not only slanderous, but hateful to Catholics and even Christians.

      An accusation of racism from one of his customers only helps to substantiate this.

      I was only pointing out to you that Catholic priests have had their lives destroyed by far less than what Thomas Rivers is demonstrably guilty of.

      Delete
    20. You seem to be implying that allegations of child abuse are not as bad as allegations of defaming sacred objects.

      Delete
    21. This seems to be a waste of my time. Further posts will be deleted.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Laughter stops at Judgment. See how these losers cringe when they await their lot.

    God alone. Forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone having a different belief or opinion than you does not make them a loser.

      Delete
    2. No, but I think a case can be made for using racial slurs and carelessly insulting people's beliefs. Don't you think?

      Delete
  6. This bar is down the street from where I live. I would never go there b/c the name of it is blasphemous, and I live a deep devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. I've always tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, thinking that perhaps the owner does love BVM but has an inappropriate way of showing it. Seeing that it's Baltimore, I would not be surprised of racism or other ignorance in the owner, but I certainly have never heard that. (Then again, I don't hang out much with people who frequent the bars, and there are MANY in Baltmore, ha ha.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an objective case of blasphemy, and you can tell it by the spite being vented by the patrons and owners of the bar.

      Delete
    2. Blasphemy is objective. What you find to be offensive or blasphemous is not blasphemous to everyone.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, meant to say blasphemy is not objective.

      Delete
    4. Most people don't find racial slurs offensive either, apparently.

      Delete
    5. Racial slurs are offensive. So is accusing people of things without facts. I have repeatedly said that if you find me proof, I will gladly concede that he is a racist and that is awful.

      Delete
    6. Ok, we've already established that it's a fact that one of the former customers accused Tom Rivers of using a racist term. Considering how he's continuing to insult Catholics, and their sacred vessels, personalities and religion, I find it very likely that he also used the N-word.

      Just because Catholicism isn't important to you and you don't think it's a bit deal to use slurs against that, is your business, but it's still a slur and it's far more serious than a racial slur.

      Delete
    7. Please explain to me why a slur against your religion is more serious than a racial slur?

      Delete
    8. The suggestion that an anti-religious slur is more serious than a racial slur is not only ridiculous, it's incredibly divisive and offensive. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, SIR.

      Delete
    9. It's worse to offend God than it is to offend man.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  8. I'm not a theologian but I'm going to guess that if you can hate someone for who they are inside (the person's spirit which in Catholicism is expressed by our faith and works and which are ruled by charity under the banner of Our Lord Jesus Christ)than it must be nothing at all to hate someone for what they look like on the outside( the person's skin). The one hate so easily leads to the other. People who are right with God just don't hate and that's maybe why spiritual hate is worse that physical hate, the one leads to the other. I know someone can express this better than me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one said anything about what's inside people. If you're going to make unjustifiable assertions about what people think, kindly don't do it here, your posts will be deleted.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...