lol restaurant threathened to be sued by atheist.

[LogGrad98]

Hi. I just wanted to add that I have nothing to add.

Thank you.

 

[Siro]

Is this your first time reading a dutch post?

Is this the original Dutch? The one who used to post about nothing except his hatred of Al Jefferson? He's always been a little annoying, but nothing like this...

 

[fishonjazz]

Is this the original Dutch? The one who used to post about nothing except his hatred of Al Jefferson? He's always been a little annoying, but nothing like this...

Thats the one.
Now he just bitches about everything all the time

 

[Hantlers]

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.

I guess I understand the legality behind it, I just think it's stupid and pointless. It's really not hurting anybody…just a waste of time and money.

 

[gandalfe]

NO it is not

Then you fail logic.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

NO it is not

yes it is. The end result is the same. Let's say that a restaurant charged blacks more for the same meal as whites, and a law was passed forbidding such a practice. In response, the restaurant charged all people the same price, but offered whites a 15% discount. So you're saying this is ok and does not amount to the same thing? Really?

 

[TroutBum]

What if it were a 99% discount? Would it be discriminatory then? How about if they had a burger that cost $500, but if you pray to the East on your prayer rug, you get it for only $5. Would that be discrimination against those who don't want to do that for religious reasons?

The easy way to tell if something is discrimination is to simply turn it around.

No, it wouldn't. Unless the business owner lives in Little Iraq, USA, he probably won't be in business for too long. I know I wouldn't go there. 'MURICA: Freedom to choose where you eat.

Agree. Although I would just take my business elsewhere.

Pretty much this. If it really is as discriminatory as the JackHoles are making it seem, then the diner will go out of business soon enough.

I have written in Mickey Mouse on a few ballots. One year he even got three votes in my small town for mayor.

Nice to see that you take your freedoms so lightly. The good news? You're not the dumbest person in your town; you're tied with the other three.

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.

And there it is again, that whole pesky "freedom" thing.

Then you fail logic.

Dude. That's like arguing that the sun could melt you. Yes, if you want to be 100% scientific about it, the sun could melt you. What you fail to grasp is that you'd have to leave earth in order for it to happen, but screw logic, you've got an argument to win.

No, the sun will never melt a human being. No, giving a random discount does not mean that you're charging everyone else a higher price.

 

[TroutBum]

yes it is. The end result is the same. Let's say that a restaurant charged blacks more for the same meal as whites, and a law was passed forbidding such a practice. In response, the restaurant charged all people the same price, but offered whites a 15% discount. So you're saying this is ok and does not amount to the same thing? Really?

That isn't the same thing, and it's not even close. Keep trying though, Mr. You Fail Logic.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Is this the original Dutch? The one who used to post about nothing except truth of corbin's Al Jefferson's love and Al's Lack of defense? He's always been a awesome

Fixed Like a Dutch

 

[DutchJazzer]

Then you fail logic.

You fail at economics

 

[DutchJazzer]

yes it is. The end result is the same. Let's say that a restaurant charged blacks more for the same meal as whites, and a law was passed forbidding such a practice. In response, the restaurant charged all people the same price, but offered whites a 15% discount. So you're saying this is ok and does not amount to the same thing? Really?

as stated above you fail at economics.

 

[TroutBum]

Fixed Like a Dutch

You fail at fixing, which ironically, makes your statement true. It's like dividing by zero, really.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

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.

It absolutely works. First, these aren't random discounts. A truly random discount would mean than everyone had equal chance of receiving the discount. This is not the case here, but the discount is offered to a particular group of people according to their religious practices. What this restaurant is doing is clearly a discriminatory practice; it singles out a certain group for preferential treatment; textbook discrimination.

That you would't mind eating at a restaurant the discriminates in favor of atheists is completely irrelevant, so is your assessment of what is or is not legal. This is a matter of law. I seriously doubt that the law is on the favor of religious-based discrimination at public accommodation businesses. But I might be wrong.

Imagine that the pricing discrimination was done on the basis of race (e.g., whites get a 15% discount), would you still be ok with it? Clearly some forms of discrimination are worse, less acceptable, than others.

 

[DutchJazzer]

yes it is. The end result is the same. Let's say that a restaurant charged blacks more for the same meal as whites, and a law was passed forbidding such a practice. In response, the restaurant charged all people the same price, but offered whites a 15% discount. So you're saying this is ok and does not amount to the same thing? Really?

also some subways offer homeless free food.
isnt that also discrimination should they offer everybody free subs?

seriously this equality thing is ********* and society needs to be more tolerant and grow a pair

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

as stated above you fail at economics.

Ok, whatever you say.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

also some subways offer homeless free food.
isnt that also discrimination should they offer everybody free subs?

seriously this equality thing is ********* and society needs to be more tolerant and grow a pair

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.

 

[DutchJazzer]

It absolutely works. First, these aren't random discounts. A truly random discount would mean than everyone had equal chance of receiving the discount. This is not the case here, but the discount is offered to a particular group of people according to their religious practices. What this restaurant is doing is clearly a discriminatory practice; it singles out a certain group for preferential treatment; textbook discrimination.

That you would't mind eating at a restaurant the discriminates in favor of atheists is completely irrelevant, so is your assessment of what is or is not legal. This is a matter of law. I seriously doubt that the law is on the favor of religious-based discrimination at public accommodation businesses. But I might be wrong.

Imagine that the pricing discrimination was done on the basis of race (e.g., whites get a 15% discount), would you still be ok with it? Clearly some forms of discrimination are worse, less acceptable, than others.

so is it okay to give discount to family and friends?
o

 

[JAZZGASM]

Hantlers-When you have any policy that infringes on a protected class, how do you pick and choose what is acceptable? I could see a restaurant in Utah not serving gays, and many would be OK with that, so is it OK?

So while this may be petty to many, it is a situation involving dicrimination about religion, even if it seems a bit innocouos such as this. If we only enforced equal protection some of the time, it would not work.

 

[Hantlers]

Hantlers-When you have any policy that infringes on a protected class, how do you pick and choose what is acceptable? I could see a restaurant in Utah not serving gays, and many would be OK with that, so is it OK?

So while this may be petty to many, it is a situation involving dicrimination about religion, even if it seems a bit innocouos such as this. If we only enforced equal protection some of the time, it would not work.

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.

 

[Hantlers]

It absolutely works. First, these aren't random discounts. A truly random discount would mean than everyone had equal chance of receiving the discount. This is not the case here, but the discount is offered to a particular group of people according to their religious practices. What this restaurant is doing is clearly a discriminatory practice; it singles out a certain group for preferential treatment; textbook discrimination.

That you would't mind eating at a restaurant the discriminates in favor of atheists is completely irrelevant, so is your assessment of what is or is not legal. This is a matter of law. I seriously doubt that the law is on the favor of religious-based discrimination at public accommodation businesses. But I might be wrong.

Imagine that the pricing discrimination was done on the basis of race (e.g., whites get a 15% discount), would you still be ok with it? Clearly some forms of discrimination are worse, less acceptable, than others.

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.