lol restaurant threathened to be sued by atheist.

[seattlejazzfan]

As a religious person myself (I attend church on a weekly basis and try to live according to my faith), this bothers me because it is a discount that only one group of people are eligible for. I seriously doubt bringing a rug and praying to the East would be acceptable in this restaurant. Would the owners of the restaurant tolerate ululation in celebration of the participants about to enjoy their feast? How about a tribal dance?

Right, the group of people who can move their arms and hands.

It's not the atheists who should be suing, but rather the paralyzed below the neck who have a legit case of discrimination.

 

[Hantlers]

As a religious person myself (I attend church on a weekly basis and try to live according to my faith), this bothers me because it is a discount that only one group of people are eligible for. I seriously doubt bringing a rug and praying to the East would be acceptable in this restaurant. Would the owners of the restaurant tolerate ululation in celebration of the participants about to enjoy their feast? How about a tribal dance?

Well then…I'm sure you have a lot of problems with senior citizen discounts and veterans discounts, right?

As for the rest of what you posted, the owner specifically stated that it was not just for Christian prayers, but for any prayers. I won't speculate as to what the owners think, because unlike yourself, I'm not privy to their thoughts.

 

[Siro]

How would you feel if a restaurant offered random discounts to people wearing t-shirts promoting atheism? I personally wouldn't patronize that restaurant, because that's disrespectful to the religious people of the community.

 

[Hantlers]

Even if you don't get the discount, who really cares? Life isn't fair, get over it and move on with your life. If this is the only thing that you have to worry/protest about, then your life is too easy and you don't even see it.

It's literally not changing the way anybody lives, it's a non-issue.

 

[seattlejazzfan]

How would you feel if a restaurant offered random discounts to people wearing t-shirts promoting atheism? I personally wouldn't patron that restaurant, because that's disrespectful to the religious people of the community.

I'd go buy a t-shirt promoting atheism, wear it to that restaurant and hope I get randomly chosen. Cheap food, baby!

 

[DutchJazzer]

How would you feel if a restaurant offered random discounts to people wearing t-shirts promoting atheism? I personally wouldn't patronize that restaurant, because that's disrespectful to the religious people of the community.

ooh,
blacks can be proud.
gays can be proud.
atheist can be proud.

but whites can't be proud.
heterosexuals can't be proud.
religious people can't be proud.

one offends, the other is acceptable? equal rights.

 

[Siro]

ooh,
blacks can be proud.
gays can be proud.
atheist can be proud.

but whites can't be proud.
heterosexuals can't be proud.
religious people can't be proud.

one offends, the other is acceptable? equal rights.

I don't know what you're prattling about, or why you're quoting my post while doing it.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Flip this around. Let's say there's a restaurant that charges Christians more $$ for the same food dish than atheists. (And I agree with the argument that offering one group of people a discount and another group not is essentially the same thing as charing more for the same service to the latter group.) Anyone here want to guess how Christians would (as a whole) respond to this?

Here's betting that they'd react very similarly to how the atheists have acted here.

Yes, restaurants, stores, service providers offer senior citizen discounts, charge less for veterans or members of the military, etc., but not all group distinctions are equal. For better or worse, this country, and its legal system and traditions, treat religious discrimination differently than they treat these other forms of discrimination. Frankly, continuing to argue that these are all equivalent forms of discrimination really misses the mark--by a wide amount.

 

[fishonjazz]

this bothers me because it is a discount that only one group of people are eligible for.

Untrue.
Everyone had the ability to pray

 

[fishonjazz]

How would you feel if a restaurant offered random discounts to people wearing t-shirts promoting atheism? I personally wouldn't patronize that restaurant, because that's disrespectful to the religious people of the community.

I wouldn't give a **** cause I'm not easily offended

 

[fishonjazz]

Even if you don't get the discount, who really cares? Life isn't fair, get over it and move on with your life. If this is the only thing that you have to worry/protest about, then your life is too easy and you don't even see it.

It's literally not changing the way anybody lives, it's a non-issue.

Agreed.
Whole bunch of ******* (plural cats) in the world today

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't know what you're prattling about, or why you're quoting my post while doing it.

Is this your first time reading a dutch post?

 

[Hantlers]

Flip this around. Let's say there's a restaurant that charges Christians more $$ for the same food dish than atheists. (And I agree with the argument that offering one group of people a discount and another group not is essentially the same thing as charing more for the same service to the latter group.) Anyone here want to guess how Christians would (as a whole) respond to this?

Here's betting that they'd react very similarly to how the atheists have acted here.

Yes, restaurants, stores, service providers offer senior citizen discounts, charge less for veterans or members of the military, etc., but not all group distinctions are equal. For better or worse, this country, and its legal system and traditions, treat religious discrimination differently than they treat these other forms of discrimination. Frankly, continuing to argue that these are all equivalent forms of discrimination really misses the mark--by a wide amount.

Your original argument doesn't work, doesn't even come close to working. Charging somebody more because they are part of a group is discrimination...randomly giving out discounts to a small amount of people isn't.

If a restaurant randomly awarded an atheist a discount on a meal, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Would I eat there? If the food was really good, yeah. If it wasn't, probably not, and I certainly wouldn't say that it's illegal.

 

[gandalfe]

Your original argument doesn't work, doesn't even come close to working. Charging somebody more because they are part of a group is discrimination...randomly giving out discounts to a small amount of people isn't.

If a restaurant randomly awarded an atheist a discount on a meal, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Would I eat there? If the food was really good, yeah. If it wasn't, probably not, and I certainly wouldn't say that it's illegal.

So, you say that charging one person less is not the same as charging someone else more?

 

[DutchJazzer]

So, you say that charging one person less is not the same as charging someone else more?

NO it is not

 

[Stoked]

How would you feel if a restaurant offered random discounts to people wearing t-shirts promoting atheism? I personally wouldn't patronize that restaurant, because that's disrespectful to the religious people of the community.

This insinuation that those supporting this business are only doing so because they are Christian is insulting.


I'd say right on for the business in your example. If that's what they want to offer a discount for then right on!

 

[Stoked]

Got to love how some posters try to to twist into different price charges or specifically eliminating people from ever being eligible for the discount to make their argument.

Can't make the argument so they have to twist the scenario to suit their narrative.

 

[Hantlers]

So, you say that charging one person less is not the same as charging someone else more?

That's not what I said at all. In this story, nobody is being charged more. The majority of people are paying the same price that is listed on the menu, while a small, select few are basically getting less than their tip covered. That is not the same as charging somebody more because they didn't pay.

This really isn't that difficult.

 

[JAZZGASM]

That's not what I said at all. In this story, nobody is being charged more. The majority of people are paying the same price that is listed on the menu, while a small, select few are basically getting less than their tip covered. That is not the same as charging somebody more because they didn't pay.

This really isn't that difficult.

AVIS lost an equal protection case under similar circumstances.

30 % off was offered to openly gay people w a code.

The majority of customers did not know about the code and paid higher prices.

Anyone could use it, but it was designed for gays that were open, so not all gays got the discount.

A straight woman sued. The court ruled it was an equal protection violation.

 

[RobDMB]

I actually live in Winston-Salem. I think that I will make a trip to this restaurant (which I've never heard of before) to show my support of their business.

I have a problem with these advocacy groups that threaten litigation to people all over the country. They have no interest in Winston-Salem other than telling people they've never met what to do. If people in the community were worried about it, then let's address it. If the community doesn't care, then why should some outside group have any say? How about the FFRF worry about it's own community (Wisconsin)? Seems like a form of oppression to me.

In my own opinion, litigation is completely over-used in our society. Somebody is always looking to profit from nothing. It makes me think of a story I read about a guy suing Gearbox games over Aliens: Colonial Marines. The game stunk (apparently, I never played it) so he filed a lawsuit against the company for "lying" in their advertising. What kind of BS is that? And how many more of those types of lawsuits have to be filed for us to stop paying lawyers who will take that kind of case.