lol restaurant threathened to be sued by atheist.

[JAZZGASM]

They are different as one specifically excludes people and the other does not. This is an x for y case. Not a you 50 people can be eligible but you 50 can't case.

It is different on the base details of the case. (using the gays can get a discount example)

The example that Siro used of a paryer rug facing east is a better example.

I do not see a distinction. I could have used the gay discount even though I am not gay. There was not litmus test for gayness, you just enter the code. I could have prayed even though I am not religious. I see no distinction.

 

[Stoked]

I do not see a distinction. I could have used the gay discount even though I am not gay. There was not litmus test for gayness, you just enter the code. I could have prayed even though I am not religious. I see no distinction.

I do as it is an attempt to specifically exclude people. I honestly do not see the prayer discount as an attempt to specifically exclude people.

And enough of that.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I am talking about giving disadvantaged kids the same tools for success that others have. What they do with it is up to them.

Education (many things play into this) specifically.

AA does nothing to address the cause of the problem, nothing.

My school has more resources than 98% of schools. We're an urban district and it's ridiculous the amount of funding we get and the number of resource at ours (teachers) and the students' fingertips. We've more than leveled the playing field and it hasn't changed anything as far as our kids academic success or lack thereof goes, imo.

It's sad. Our kids are provided sooooooooooo many opportunities and still underachieve like crazy.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I do as it is an attempt to specifically exclude people. I honestly do not see the prayer discount as an attempt to specifically exclude people.

And enough of that.

I disagree. They are both inclusionary/exclusionary discounts involving a protected class.

One gives discounts for stating you are gay (anyone could do this), although it was intended for gays...

The other gives discounts for praying (again, anyone could do this), although it was intended for those who pray...

Not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, I just can't see a distinction, and am not understanding how you do. I just need a better explanation, because they both scenarios are very similar from my point of view.

 

[LogGrad98]

I have no problem with honoring people for the contributions they have made to society over the years (nor with the assumption that an given elderly person is in this group).

But it is inherently discriminatory against younger people. Why should I have to pay full price just because I wasn't born at the right time, I had no control over that?

 

[LogGrad98]

Hey jazzgasm.
What about the"no shirt, no shoes, no service"?
Why is that rule ok?

This and the signs I have seen that state "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Is that a right or isn't it? Seems if it is they can choose the circumstances as they see fit.

 

[JAZZGASM]

This and the signs I have seen that state "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Is that a right or isn't it? Seems if it is they can choose the circumstances as they see fit.

I can make a sign that says "I refuse the right to kill you if you bug me". It doesn't mean there won't be consequences.

Here is a basic overview:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

 

[JAZZGASM]

But it is inherently discriminatory against younger people. Why should I have to pay full price just because I wasn't born at the right time, I had no control over that?

Age is not a protected class (outside of employment).

 

[JAZZGASM]

Our country has many laws that are much more of a double standard and hypocritical. Abortion would be a good example. I am surprised there are so many polarized opinions on equal protection.

 

[silesian]

I disagree. They are both inclusionary/exclusionary discounts involving a protected class.

One gives discounts for stating you are gay (anyone could do this), although it was intended for gays...

The other gives discounts for praying (again, anyone could do this), although it was intended for those who pray...

Not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, I just can't see a distinction, and am not understanding how you do. I just need a better explanation, because they both scenarios are very similar from my point of view.

Thank you, sir, you have added a lot of clarity to this discussion.

 

[PearlWatson]

The civil rights act prohibits discrimination by private businesses that provide public accomodations, including restaurants.

While religious discrimination is not important to many (even in Utah, which based in history is surprising), but fortunately the legal system protects all protected classes.

In both these cases the groups you claim are "protected classes"(homosexuals and religious) were being rewarded for their "class" distinction with discounts, not discriminated against.

You have it all backwards. It is the heterosexuals and atheists who are being "protected" or favored by the government...well the Freedom From Religion Organization simply threatened lawsuit and got what they wanted and didn't go through the court.

 

[JAZZGASM]

In both these cases the groups you claim are "protected classes"(homosexuals and religious) were being rewarded for their "class" distinction with discounts, not discriminated against.

You have it all backwards. It is the heterosexuals and atheists who are being "protected" or favored by the government...well the Freedom From Religion Organization simply threatened lawsuit and got what they wanted and didn't go through the court.

Equal Protection is designed to protect all classes equally. If AVIS had a "straight discount" it would be illegal as well.

 

[PearlWatson]

Equal Protection is designed to protect all classes equally. If AVIS had a "straight discount" it would be illegal as well.

You've now changed your story:

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).

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

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.

 

[Gameface]

You've now changed your story:

The "protected class" is a category for which there is protection. Race is a protected class, not black people, for instance. Religion is a protected class, not just Christians, or just Muslims or just Atheists.

 

[JAZZGASM]

You've now changed your story:

No, I have not. Race is a protected class. That includes ANY race. Religion is a protected class. And now under Windsor, Sexual Orientation is a protected class and so on... The rules may have been put in place to protect one segment, but the rules apply to all divisions within a protected class equally.

 

[One Brow]

But it is inherently discriminatory against younger people. Why should I have to pay full price just because I wasn't born at the right time, I had no control over that?

Younger people haven't had time to earn the honor yet.

 

[Stoked]

My school has more resources than 98% of schools. We're an urban district and it's ridiculous the amount of funding we get and the number of resource at ours (teachers) and the students' fingertips. We've more than leveled the playing field and it hasn't changed anything as far as our kids academic success or lack thereof goes, imo.

It's sad. Our kids are provided sooooooooooo many opportunities and still underachieve like crazy.

Then that is on them and their families but the playing field is leveled. I want to see all kids with that chance is what I am saying.

 

[Stoked]

Younger people haven't had time to earn the honor yet.

Nor do all older people deserve it.

But that is fully the businesses personal choice. I have 0 problem with them offering it even though it discriminates agaisnt me.

Basically the only difference between us is the degree and reason of the discrimination. Not discrimination itself.

 

[One Brow]

so you want them to join the elks lcub and get a private license to discriminate so you can sooo them like you did the boy scouts for being a private partsy???

^^matchin

Actually, the Boy Scouts prevailed in those suits by declaring themselves to be a private club; previously they had claimed otherwise, in order to get special consideration from governmental bodies.

I don't like how you are posting an a public forum. There for I am going to come up with a list of rules that will make me happy and if you do not comply I will sue you.

To which public forum do you refer? JazzFanz is a private forum. It has a liberal membership policy, but it is still private.

Uh, because it's an easy way to save some money on food by participating in a restaurant's discount program?

Did you really just ask that question?

Why should I have to lie about my being religious to qualify for the discount?

What's the history of discrimination against people who don't pray?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States

 

[Stoked]

Actually, the Boy Scouts prevailed in those suits by declaring themselves to be a private club; previously they had claimed otherwise, in order to get special consideration from governmental bodies.



To which public forum do you refer? JazzFanz is a private forum. It has a liberal membership policy, but it is still private.

So would you be in favor of a restaurant doing so and choosing to deny people for whatever reason they want?