lol restaurant threathened to be sued by atheist.

[JAZZGASM]

Then giving discounts for age, military service, disabilities, good behavior and a particular type of employment are discriminatory as well.

Ugh!

True. But none of those discounts discriminate against a protected class, so they do not violate the constitution...

 

[Stoked]

There are cases that have ruled that private discrimination against a protected class in restaurants is a violation of the civil rights act (cases used the commerce clause to apply to private restaurants).

As you can imagine, since the majority of these cases originated in the 60s they were based on cases where owners would not serve blacks. So the rules make sense as a whole.

But that is not what my example, or even this entire thread, was about. My example was that according to Core4 & Brow giving someone discount and not offering it to someone else is discrimination.


The listed price is the same for everyone, as is the service. These discounts are not completely inclusive or exclusive. Not all religious people got them and not all non-religious people were excluded.

The business is saying that if you do "x" we will give you "y". Everyone is free to do or not do it.

 

[Stoked]

True. But none of those discounts discriminate against a protected class, so they do not violate the constitution...

Athiests are not a protected class. Even then athiests could get these discounts as well. particualarly the Pizza parlor one that I linked.

 

[Stifle Tower]

Since I have no tats, I'll seek out any business owned by cj.
Let's take this further...Imagine the uproar in Utah if a business gave a discount for wearing an "undershirt" underneath ones clothes. Now, you don't have to be Mormon, you just have to have a visible sleeve line underneath. Anything wrong with THAT? How about if I give a discount as a restaurant owner to any M/F couple who come in holding hands? I'm just promoting love. Or can I do the reverse? Just give random discounts to M/M or F/F couples who come in and show some PDA. They don't necessarily have to be homosexual and I won't give the discounts to everyone; it will be "random" but ONLY for same-sex couples.

Businesses ARE obligated to certain restrictions. Otherwise, they could give discounts based on skin color, for example. Legal or illegal, it's just a bad policy by the restaurant. Glad to see they came to their senses and decided to drop the discount rather than go to court and lose.

 

[Stoked]

Since I have no tats, I'll seek out any business owned by cj.
Let's take this further...Imagine the uproar in Utah if a business gave a discount for wearing an "undershirt" underneath ones clothes. Now, you don't have to be Mormon, you just have to have a visible sleeve line underneath. Anything wrong with THAT? How about if I give a discount as a restaurant owner to any M/F couple who come in holding hands? I'm just promoting love. Or can I do the reverse? Just give random discounts to M/M or F/F couples who come in and show some PDA. They don't necessarily have to be homosexual and I won't give the discounts to everyone; it will be "random" but ONLY to same-sex couples.

So your argument is that there would be other people that would be as equally dumb in stopping those discounts as the FFRF is in trying to stop this?

If a business wants to provide someone a discount provided they do something then why not? As long as it does not specifically exclude anyone what is the problem?

I do not wear garments but wear undershirts all the time. As do a lot of professional dressed men and women.

As for your holding hands example. Sweet! "Hey Dad/friend/brother/wife/cousin/coworker,partner! hold my hand when we walk in and we get 10% off!" done.

The bolded is your problem. These two cases DID. NOT. DO. THAT. They did not at any time ban anyone from qualifying based on any criteria. Anyone can do "x" and get "y" in these two cases. Anyone.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm with Stroked on this one.

 

[JAZZGASM]

But that is not what my example, or even this entire thread, was about. My example was that according to Core4 & Brow giving someone discount and not offering it to someone else is discrimination.


The listed price is the same for everyone, as is the service. These discounts are not completely inclusive or exclusive. Not all religious people got them and not all non-religious people were excluded.

The business is saying that if you do "x" we will give you "y". Everyone is free to do or not do it.

Yes, it is discrimination to give it to one person, but not another. It doesn't mean it is not allowed. You can discriminate all you want as long as it does not affect a protected class. Religion is a protected class, so giving the discount to those that pray over those that do not is a constitutional violation.

Athiests are not a protected class. Even then athiests could get these discounts as well. particualarly the Pizza parlor one that I linked.

Regardless of how atheists feel, the government (EEOC) has defined atheism as a religion, and as such has protection under the constitution. There is case law (Townley case iirc??) that backs it up.

So only giving discounts to religions that pray could be a violation...

 

[DutchJazzer]

So, it's really hard to understand why non-religious people would be upset over being charged higher prices (or, does anyone really claim that getting a discount doesn't mean the price is lower)?

how about senoir discount.
or veterans discout.
or heck even homosexuals get discount these days.
but religious people can't?

 

[JAZZGASM]

So your argument is that there would be other people that would be as equally dumb in stopping those discounts as the FFRF is in trying to stop this?

If a business wants to provide someone a discount provided they do something then why not? As long as it does not specifically exclude anyone what is the problem?

I do not wear garments but wear undershirts all the time. As do a lot of professional dressed men and women.

As for your holding hands example. Sweet! "Hey Dad/friend/brother/wife/cousin/coworker,partner! hold my hand when we walk in and we get 10% off!" done.

The bolded is your problem. These two cases DID. NOT. DO. THAT. They did not at any time ban anyone from qualifying based on any criteria. Anyone can do "x" and get "y" in these two cases. Anyone.

I see your point, but these cases really gave discounts to people that prayed. The receipt listed "prayer in public" discount. So if they just did it, and left the discount without saying why, it may be harder to prove.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, it is discrimination to give it to one person, but not another. It doesn't mean it is not allowed. You can discriminate all you want as long as it does not affect a protected class. Religion is a protected class, so giving the discount to those that pray over those that do not is a constitutional violation.



Regardless of how atheists feel, the government (EEOC) has defined atheism as a religion, and as such has protection under the constitution. There is case law (Townley case iirc??) that backs it up.

So only giving discounts to religions that pray could be a violation...

Not when everyone is potentially eligible to receive it.

 

[JAZZGASM]

how about senoir discount.
or veterans discout.
or heck even homosexuals get discount these days.
but religious people can't?

Outside of employment, age is generally not a protected class.

Work affiliation is not a protected class.

Avis lost a suit because they gave discounts to gays but not to straights.

 

[TroutBum]

If I were the owner, after all of this free publicity (thanks atheist jack holes!), I'd just change my sign/receipts to show discounts for "public displays of meditation and thanksgiving". Everyone already knows that it's for praying, but now it's legal. You give the customer what they want all while giving the jack holes the finger.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Not when everyone is potentially eligible to receive it.

Anyone could convert to Christianity and get a discount, so anyone would be eligible to get a Christian only discount too.

The discount was religiously based, and discriminates against those that do not pray. It would be very difficult to overcome that for the restaurant as they called it a "prayer discount" on the receipt. If they had called it a meditation discount, etc., I'd be on board with you.

 

[Stoked]

Yes, it is discrimination to give it to one person, but not another. It doesn't mean it is not allowed. You can discriminate all you want as long as it does not affect a protected class. Religion is a protected class, so giving the discount to those that pray over those that do not is a constitutional violation.



Regardless of how atheists feel, the government (EEOC) has defined atheism as a religion, and as such has protection under the constitution. There is case law (Townley case iirc??) that backs it up.

So only giving discounts to religions that pray could be a violation...

hahahaha, that's awesome.

We are just going to have to disagree as neither one of these businesses barred anyone. How can it be discrimination when anyone can receive the discounts.

I don't see it and I hope the courts wont either. I hope it goes to court and the FFRF loses and has to pay the business onwer for their time and all their court fees.

 

[Stoked]

Anyone could convert to Christianity and get a discount, so anyone would be eligible to get a Christian only discount too.

The discount was religiously based, and discriminates against those that do not pray. It would be very difficult to overcome that for the restaurant as they called it a "prayer discount" on the receipt. If they had called it a meditation discount, etc., I'd be on board with you.

lol, fine they can change what they call it and still apply it the same damn way. it may hit those that do not pray and a good portion of those are religious people. Therefore it is not only exlcluding non-religious people.

Jazzgasm. We just have to agree to disagree. I do not see them outright excluding anyone so I see no discrimination.

 

[JAZZGASM]

lol, fine they can change what they call it and still apply it the same damn way. it may hit those that do not pray and a good portion of those are religious people. Therefore it is not only exlcluding non-religious people.

Not sure they can. Now any plaintiff can show the prior history to show any new rule is discriminatory in practice (even if not on its face). There are many cases that discuss this--mostly involving freedom of speech and equal protection.

 

[JAZZGASM]

hahahaha, that's awesome.

We are just going to have to disagree as neither one of these businesses barred anyone. How can it be discrimination when anyone can receive the discounts.

I don't see it and I hope the courts wont either. I hope it goes to court and the FFRF loses and has to pay the business onwer for their time and all their court fees.

It is not about barring, it is about discriminating against a protected class. They are charging more to non-god believers as they do not pray. Our laws need to be consistent across the board. They were charging more to non-prayers.

 

[Stoked]

Not sure they can. Now any plaintiff can show the prior history to show any new rule is discriminatory in practice (even if not on its face). There are many cases that discuss this--mostly involving freedom of speech and equal protection.

Equal protection would come into play if there was a second price list for non religious people. Or they were subjected to a reduced menu, segregated seating, food quality...

They are not. I am a spiritual person that would have to pay full price and not receive a discount. I belive many of the same thigns they do but I didn't bow my head. I lose out.

I was not willing to do x for y.

 

[JAZZGASM]

Equal protection would come into play if there was a second price list for non religious people. Or they were subjected to a reduced menu, segregated seating, food quality...

They are not. I am a spiritual person that would have to pay full price and not receive a discount. I belive many of the same thigns they do but I didn't bow my head. I lose out.

I was not willing to do x for y.

The Avis case gave 30% discounts to openly gay individuals. So gays that didn't admit it could not get the discount (analogous to a nonpraying god believer). They were sued by straight people (that refused to admit being gay, similar to an atheist that does not pray). The court ruled for the plaintiffs saying it was a violation of equal protection.

It is a very analogous case, and based on the fact pattern here, the restaurant would lose.

 

[Stifle Tower]

So your argument is that there would be other people that would be as equally dumb in stopping those discounts as the FFRF is in trying to stop this?

If a business wants to provide someone a discount provided they do something then why not? As long as it does not specifically exclude anyone what is the problem?

I do not wear garments but wear undershirts all the time. As do a lot of professional dressed men and women.

As for your holding hands example. Sweet! "Hey Dad/friend/brother/wife/cousin/coworker,partner! hold my hand when we walk in and we get 10% off!" done.

The bolded is your problem. These two cases DID. NOT. DO. THAT. They did not at any time ban anyone from qualifying based on any criteria. Anyone can do "x" and get "y" in these two cases. Anyone.

And my bolded part does not do that. Anyone can kiss; they don't have to be homosexual. If I want to try for a 15% discount, I can kiss my brother or male best friend, even though I'm not homosexual. Now I DO find that offensive because it is distasteful to me ; I have no desire to kiss another male, although a certain percentage of the population does do that. But I would have to do something that I find offensive to qualify for a discount. I don't want to base a counter argument on same-sex. It can be a variety of things. This would be entirely different it were a discount for being polite (for example, thanking the wait staff). However you color it, this is largely a Christian-based practice (saying grace). And by saying "anyone can do it" you are saying atheists or non-Christians have to perform or fake a practice which is primarily Christian based.

Tell you what, since religion is the basis of this discount, how about a restaurant in SL offering a 15% discount if they see a Book Of Mormon on the table. Doesn't discriminate; you don't need to be Mormon to bring in a BofM. Anyone can do it.

And keep in mind, I'm posting this as an active Christian. I just completely disagree with that policy.