The John 3:16 discount
Would you recite a Bible verse for a discount on an oil change? If so, Charlie Whittington, owner of a Kwik Kar Lube & Tune in Plano, Texas, has a deal for you. He’s offering oil changes for $19.95 to customers who bring in a coupon and recite John 3:16 (see video clip below). Whittington has come under fire for the promotion, with some alleging that he is discriminating against nonbelievers and profiting from religion.
Some customers refused and paid a higher price. Marshall Wei, a Chinese immigrant, objected, asking, “Why should I be compelled to quote something I do not feel comfortable to quote?” But Whittington remains committed to the promotion because he says it’s a privately owned franchise and he can do whatever he wants to with it. “If I’m standing for what I believe, so be it,” he said. “Bring it on.”
Is it discrimination? I would be inclined that say “no” on the basis that coupons are not compulsory and no customer is turned away from the business because he or she refuses to recite the verse. Customers like Wei are not compelled to have their oil changed at this particular Kwik Kar. He could have easily taken his business elsewhere. Wei chose not to recite the verse and paid full-price (about $46). In the end, the market will either reward or punish Whittington for mixing the Bible with his business. I say let him bear the consequences of his actions.
But is this a proper use of the Bible? On one hand, you could argue that is it not good to use the Bible as an incentive to make a profit. Mixing Jesus with money can undermine the purpose of Scripture to point people to the work of the Trinity. On the other hand, you could argue that this approach encourages people to think about and discuss Scripture—and anything that gets people to do that is good.
No matter where one comes down on this issue, I think we can all agree that what makes America great is that Whittington has the freedom to bear the market consequences of mixing his religion with a private business, and for that I am grateful.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top24 Comments to “The John 3:16 discount”
“and anything that gets people to do that is good.”
Well I dunno, Lewis wrote a whole book on a couple of demons discussing Scripture….which I would hardly call “good”.
Report comment to moderator
I think this business owner is thinking.. and doing something highly constructive! This promotion goes right to the heart of materialism/consumerism in America (money/material things are ‘god’, aka idolatry).. and the person interviewed in this report clearly values money highly, because he’s trying to get the best deal for no real effort. This promotion also it acknowledges God (of the Bible, not other so-called ones) in the process.. Just because some (the ‘customer’) doesn’t want to acknowledge or has chosen to ignore something (like God) doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be “mixed” in with ALL aspects of life, including a small business owner in their day-to-day business practices!
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure how I feel about the promotion, but I agree that he certainly has a right to do it. People who don’t want to recite the verse, whether they’re Christians who aren’t comfortable about the way he’s using it, or unbelievers who aren’t familiar with the verse or who just don’t want to quote it under any circumstances, don’t have to do so, nor do they have to patronize his business.
Lots of businesses have promotions that patrons are free to participate in or not. Chipotle had a promotion where they gave a free burrito on Halloween a couple of years ago to people who came in dressed like a burrito or something like that. People who don’t want to dress up like burritos are free to stay away or to pay for their food. Same thing here.
But if only one customer is complaining, then good. I guess it’s obvious to most that there’s no discrimination going on here.
Report comment to moderator
I certainly agree that this business owner can choose how he deals with his customer. But my wife made a good suggestion. If the customer didn’t know the verse, maybe the owner should have shown him the verse in the Bible, and then had him repeat it. That way, ministry is done, & the customer can save money.
Report comment to moderator
I think Marshall Wei is wrong here — this is no different than handing a coupon with some stupid, obnoxious advertising slogan that *I* don’t agree with. The business isn’t requiring you to believe John 3:16, or put it into practice — just to say some words that may or may not mean anything to you.
Which is why I think it’s not discriminatory, but a bad idea, because (for all Mr. Whittington’s good intentions) it trivializes scripture to use it this way.
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me that the message is, “Shop at Kwik Kar Lube & Tune where Christians are treated better than everyone else!”
I do like the idea of causing people to think.
Report comment to moderator
I say go with Psalm 133 while pouring the oil over the customer’s head.
“Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down on the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes! It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion! For there the Lord has commanded the blessing, life forevermore.”
Report comment to moderator
Several years ago our newspaper, “The Oklahoman,” located in Oklahoma City, started printing a short prayer on the front page of the paper. It was amazing how many people wrote in complaining about separation of church and state. The newspaper was a privately owned business, the prayeris there to this day. Way to go Charlie Whittington, it’s your business!
Report comment to moderator
I say the same, Leo!
Report comment to moderator
Next, Anthony Bradley may promote the freedom to deny a room at the inn according to religious practice. I don’t buy the theory that people who are discriminated against are unharmed because they could obtain the public accommodation simply by performing a humiliating/reforming ritual.
To me, creed is no more valid than color as a basis for discrimination.
Report comment to moderator
The freedom to discriminate against people who won’t recite Bible verses is not what makes America great.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony Bradley needs to be reminded that America’s dubious greatness has consisted of “the freedom to bear the market consequences” of operating segregated lunch counters, water fountains, store entrances, and railway carriages.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, what if I believe that clipping coupons is humiliating and I ought to receive the discount just by virtue of presenting my lovely face before the sales clerk?
Report comment to moderator
PENTAMOM1 — there’s an obvious answer to your question. I’d be happy to discuss it if you discuss my point first.
Report comment to moderator
Michaels puts coupons in the Sunday paper. What if I don’t take the Sunday paper? Shouldn’t I be able to take advantage of the coupon the same as the guy that gets the paper? Do I have to fork out $2.00 to buy the paper just so I can get the 40% off Michaels coupon? Isn’t Michaels catering to Sunday paper takers?
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I thought it was your point that people shouldn’t have to engage in actions they find annoying or humiliating in order to get a discount. Can you explain it, if it’s not that?
Report comment to moderator
PENTAMOM1 – you’re right that clipping and redeeming coupons (store coupons, not interest coupons on bearer bonds) is humiliating — but humiliating in a different way, for a different cause. Store coupons are an insult to one’s economic status in life. Demeaning, yes, but not like religious or color tests. A store could ask customers to recite “The Star Spangled Banner” without crossing the line that protects creed and color from insult. I take it you acknowledge that asking customers to recite Bible verses is humiliating. Do you need to hear reasons why creed and color are things in themselves that deserve legal protection from discrimination in public commerce and accommodation?
Report comment to moderator
PENTAMOM1 – sign me up for any campaign to protect the dignity of working people from gross exploitation by means of late fees, check cashing charges, store prices, insurance schemes, working conditions, intoxication laws, etc., etc., etc. But the legality of the one form of humiliation doesn’t justify another — much less establish American “greatness.”
Report comment to moderator
In the 70’s MacDonalds gave free burgers to those who could say “Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun,” in a specific amount of time. I don’t remember hearing anyone cry discrimination, even though it was national, not local like this story. Way to go Charlie Whittington, it’s your business!
Report comment to moderator
“I take it you acknowledge that asking customers to recite Bible verses is humiliating.”
What you should take is that I concede that some people, rationally or not, could *believe* that reciting Bible verses is humiliating. And people could have irrational beliefs about other things, like, for example, believing that clipping coupons is also humiliating.
There is no logical reason that one should be legal while the other is not. Desirable is another thing entirely, and I wasn’t the one who said anything about “American greatness.”
“Do you need to hear reasons why creed and color are things in themselves that deserve legal protection from discrimination in public commerce and accommodation?”
I understand why creed and color are protected from discrimination. I do not believe that there is any creed that forbids the quoting of certain words from a certain book without reference to one’s belief in those words. I don’t believe such a person *could* exist, any more than I believe in the existence of a religion that forbids responding to an “ask for our senior citizens’ discount” offer because it holds that speaking the words “senior citizens’ discount” is a sin. If there were such a religion, it would be equally affected by your reasoning. Therefore, if one is illegal, the other should be.
Report comment to moderator
I do not believe that there is any creed that forbids the quoting of certain words from a certain book without reference to one’s belief in those words.
The fact that my religion doesn’t forbid me from reciting a passage from your scripture wouldn’t make it less humiliating for me to have to sell my voice for your religious purposes in order to get the best price.
Requiring recitation of scripture amounts to discrimination on the basis of creed, whether or not one’s religion formally forbids such recitations. I’d rule that it crosses the line. Same goes for “show your church bulletin for a free desert” promotions. You can’t base prices on the religion of your customers.
On the other hand, law doesn’t protect people, from other forms of humiliation and discrimination. You can’t discriminate against handicapped people, but I suppose it may be legal to charge more to fatties (I’m not sure). Society has a reasonable basis for protecting people from cardinal forms of discrimination without also saving them from every form of embarrassment.
I think it’s great if you want to expand legal protections to other areas of discrimination. Anthony Bradley seems to celebrate the narrowing of these protections.
Report comment to moderator
“The fact that my religion doesn’t forbid me from reciting a passage from your scripture wouldn’t make it less humiliating for me to have to sell my voice for your religious purposes in order to get the best price.”
Right. But we’ve already established that there’s no law against having to do something humiliating to get a discount. There’s only a law against having to violate one’s religion to get equal treatment.
So this isn’t about violating your religion, it’s about doing something you personally deem humiliating, which isn’t illegal.
“Same goes for “show your church bulletin for a free desert” promotions. You can’t base prices on the religion of your customers.”
To show your bulletin, you have to participate in a religious service of a specific kind. You don’t just have to say some words that no one’s requiring you to believe. So yeah, that has something to do with the religion of the customers. Saying some words nobody has to believe, doesn’t.
I *don’t* want to extend legal protections against every subjective notion someone might have of what’s “humiliating” or not. That would be investing the government with absurd powers to punish people for violating other people’s creative sense of dignity. I’m just saying that something that’s merely “humiliating” isn’t a violation of your religion, if it doesn’t actually *violate your religion.* It might still be stupid, I think this promotion is ill-advised, but it’s not presently illegal insofar as words mean things, and I don’t think it should be made so.
Report comment to moderator
PENTAMOM1 — thanks for your patient explanation. Unfortunately we’ll not reach a consensus about what the nature of a religious insult and our social interest in protecting against it. I believe that pressuring people to recite scripture verses is different than other indignities, such as asking someone to sing “The Yellow Rose of Texas,” despite your contrary arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Understood. I hope I’ve at least demonstrated that the basis of my disagreement is that I don’t see a distinction (that is, I see the one you’re making but don’t buy its validity), not that I see one and don’t care about it. That’s frequently the case with such arguments.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!