lol restaurant threathened to be sued by atheist.

[JAZZGASM]

We're talking about a discount that basically covers a mediocre tip, that is given out probably less than 5% of the time. It isn't hurting anybody. They're not refusing to serve anybody, they're not denying service…it's a small deal.

If they weren't allowing people, yeah, that would be a problem. If they gave the discount to everybody who prayed every single time, that would be a problem. This isn't keeping people from eating, isn't keeping them from getting into the restaurant…it's not a big deal. If you don't like it, don't eat there. Problem solved.

What I am saying is if you make some things ok and others not ok, where do you draw the line?

Is a white discount of 15% ok? How about making gays sit in only one section of the restaurant, even if the rule is not announced? I think you will agree that would be ridiculous. To have true equal protection, we should not pick and choose. Do you disagree?

 

[silesian]

Bottom line is they charge the same price for everybody and some random people get a discount

Random: chosen without method or conscious decision.

Random: draw straws, long straw gets a discount

Not random: if you pray, you might win

 

[LogGrad98]

I would like to hear kicky chime in on legality, but I seem to remember seeing lots of signs around like "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "no shirt, no shoes, no service". I am not sure how far removed this is from that kind of thing, and I really can't see there being civil or legal recourse in the matter. It's like trout says, this is Murica, you are free to eat where you want to.

You may even be able to argue that this represents the owner's free exercise of their religion, which the constitution expressly protects.

 

[Hantlers]

What I am saying is if you make some things ok and others not ok, where do you draw the line?

Is a white discount of 15% ok? How about making gays sit in only one section of the restaurant, even if the rule is not announced? I think you will agree that would be ridiculous. To have true equal protection, we should not pick and choose. Do you disagree?

We also have to have some common sense in this. Is it truly fair to those who don't pray? No, it isn't. Is it hurting them or harming their ability to eat? No, it isn't.

 

[JAZZGASM]

We also have to have some common sense in this. Is it truly fair to those who don't pray? No, it isn't. Is it hurting them or harming their ability to eat? No, it isn't.

How about a discount for anyone that checks a box that they believe in God? How about a 15% discount for anyone who states they aren't a Mormon? How about a 15% discount for those who check a box on a receipt that says they aren't gay? It is a slippery slope, and to an atheist, I assume it would be just as offensive. So while it is a bit innocuous, if we don't enforce the Constitution across the board, we aren't truly offering equal protection.

Go back to the AVIS case. Anyone can rent from them, anyone can use the discount code given to openly gay men. It doesn't hurt anyone, as everyone is allowed to use it.

 

[Gameface]

No doubt you've read my previous posts where I've argued that not all forms of discrimination are equal, and some are more acceptable, or less acceptable than others. Right? If you had, you would not have bothered wasting your time making an argument I've already addressed.

Now, I'm willing to discuss which forms of discrimination are more/less acceptable than others--this is a useful exercise I think. I'm pretty confident asserting, however, that racial based and religious based discrimination weigh heavily toward the less acceptable side.

But can you not see that these legal actions harm atheists far more than the behavior they are addressing?

Yeah, if there was a 75% Christian discount at most places I ate (or desired to eat, as I wouldn't be eating out much at that point) it would be an issue worth fighting for. The praying over your food or having a flyer from a church service to get a moderate discount, not worth playing into the angry atheist stereotype over.

 

[DutchJazzer]

It's not harming anybody. This literally harms nobody. I don't care what the law says, lets use some common sense. You don't like it, don't eat there. Instead we're wasting time and money by suing people over something that doesn't mean anything in the long-run. Welcome to America!

Also, strawman, strawman, strawman. Quit with the strawman arguments please.

yes its the NEW unconstitunial AMERICA.

dont like htat someones says bless you. SUE em.
someone farts in the train? SUE EM!
someone does not give a discount? SUE EM

United states of SUENISM!



everybody who thinks the restaurant should be sued. should go live in isis controlled territory.

freedom is give discount to whoever you damm please.

 

[DutchJazzer]

What I am saying is if you make some things ok and others not ok, where do you draw the line?

Is a white discount of 15% ok? How about making gays sit in only one section of the restaurant, even if the rule is not announced? I think you will agree that would be ridiculous. To have true equal protection, we should not pick and choose. Do you disagree?

so am i allowed to give friends and family discounts?
yes or no?


if yes? maybe i consider everyone who prays a FRIEND?
or consider every jew a friend.
or consider everyone om my fb list a friend.

where do you suggest we draw the line

 

[DutchJazzer]

How about a discount for anyone that checks a box that they believe in God? How about a 15% discount for anyone who states they aren't a Mormon? How about a 15% discount for those who check a box on a receipt that says they aren't gay? It is a slippery slope, and to an atheist, I assume it would be just as offensive. So while it is a bit innocuous, if we don't enforce the Constitution across the board, we aren't truly offering equal protection.

Go back to the AVIS case. Anyone can rent from them, anyone can use the discount code given to openly gay men. It doesn't hurt anyone, as everyone is allowed to use it.

slippery slope?

exactly how i see it. but i see it the other way around.

 

[JAZZGASM]

so am i allowed to give friends and family discounts?
yes or no?


if yes? maybe i consider everyone who prays a FRIEND?
or consider every jew a friend.
or consider everyone om my fb list a friend.

where do you suggest we draw the line

A friends and family discount is not tailored towards a protected class. If you make a rule that on it is face is OK (F&F discount), when the true reason is to discriminate in favor of one class over another, and it can be proven (records or witnesses that know your true intentions) you would lose a court case.

In this case, if they had a meditation discount, and never advertised it to others as a prayer discount, they could have done it. But they tell the press it is a prayer discount, and they write prayer discount on the receipt. Equal Protection case law has been in effect with similar results for decades.

 

[DutchJazzer]

A friends and family discount is not tailored towards a protected class. If you make a rule that on it is face is OK (F&F discount), when the true reason is to discriminate in favor of one class over another, and it can be proven (records or witnesses that know your true intentions) you would lose a court case.

In this case, if they had a meditation discount, and never advertised it to others as a prayer discount, they could have done it. But they tell the press it is a prayer discount, and they write prayer discount on the receipt. Equal Protection case law has been in effect with similar results for decades.

well slipery slope bob.
now every discount needs to be acounted for.
have picture of customer who recieved discount, religion, age, sex, sexuality, race, incomelevel,

see slippery slope.
discounts should be given to anyone you damm please.


what about employee discount.
ikea gives 15% employee discount.

is that ok?
or is it discrimination?

or is it ok aslong as anyone can be hired.


so if i wanna sue them. i should try to get hired. if it fails i should sue them for discrimination?

 

[DutchJazzer]

this whole thing is atheist think religous people are dumb.
and need to be converted to atheism.

 

[JAZZGASM]

well slipery slope bob.
now every discount needs to be acounted for.
have picture of customer who recieved discount, religion, age, sex, sexuality, race, incomelevel,

see slippery slope.
discounts should be given to anyone you damm please.


what about employee discount.
ikea gives 15% employee discount.

is that ok?
or is it discrimination?

or is it ok aslong as anyone can be hired.


so if i wanna sue them. i should try to get hired. if it fails i should sue them for discrimination?

Any discount that is not based on a protected class (religion, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.) such as a employee discount is fine. It does dicriminate against non employees, but they are not a protected class. So it will pass constitutional muster....this is a 30,000' answer.

Yale offers a free class on Constitutional Law. I highly recommend anyone take it that does not understand what is protected and what is not.

 

[JAZZGASM]

this whole thing is atheist think religous people are dumb.
and need to be converted to atheism.

You know it goes both ways.

 

[DutchJazzer]

You know it goes both ways.

i never tried to convert someone to jduiasm.

ooh wait thats a lie, i use this stick on those damm door to door wittneses or whatever they are.

i troll them
by saying everything back to them
but with a jewish twist.

like they do you wanna know about yada yada. and i then troll them with do you wanna know about judiasm. ussually starting of by showing them my mezuza
but thats like jokingly, untill they get it through their thick skin that i aint budging and they just go away.

 

[One Brow]

False base assumptions that all non religious people are excluded and that all religious people are included.

You mean, all the non-religious people who pray before they eat are included?

There are plenty of discounts that people do not qualify for in many business transaction that they make. Should they have a right to be mad about all of them?

I think people could rightfully be upset over discounts that were only offered to people with blue eyes, heterosexual couples holding hands. etc.

Should someone be able to stop the discounts that many businesses give to vets because it is discrimination against them since they are not a vet?

What the history of discrimination against people who were not veterans?

Should many businesses stop giving federal employees discounts because it discriminates against those that are not?

What the history of discrimination against people who were not federal employees?

 

[One Brow]

These were modest discounts offered for fairly innocuous acts, acts that do not really require affirmation of God's existence. Yes, it is hard for me, as an Atheist, to understand why this group would make it harder for me to be an atheist. They are going backwards.

This suit hasn't affected my ability to be an atheist at all, and I don't see why it makes it harder for you when other people say you should be automatcally excluded.

They are random discounts. You could conceivably eat there 1000 times, pray over your food every time and never get the discount.

OTOH, you could be an atheist, sit there with your hands in a triangle and your eyes closed for a few seconds and get the discount.

Why would I sit with my hands in a triangle for a few seconds?

If they want to give random discounts, program the cash register to give out discounts randomly.

 

[One Brow]

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?

Yes, for pretty much every case Core4 listed.

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.

The issue is that the restaurant is proclaiming, as part of a service available to the public, that members of the public who perform "x" are superior to members of the public who do not perform "x".

 

[One Brow]

did you know soldiers could get leave to attend gay parade.

while they could not to attend church.

thats true discrimination.

What country was this? Not the US, where church attendance is considered so important, that those who don't attend services on Sunday are often given work duties in basic training.

 

[Stoked]

You mean, all the non-religious people who pray before they eat are included?



I think people could rightfully be upset over discounts that were only offered to people with blue eyes, heterosexual couples holding hands. etc.



What the history of discrimination against people who were not veterans?


With your history o
What the history of discrimination against people who were not federal employees?

None of these discounts were based on any physical trait. Nice try.

Would you be for it if they said a "Meditation discount"? yes or no.