Prayer discount dropped at restaurant after objections made by FFRF.

[skylights]

Interesting responses. To those approving of the prayer discount - I have a question:
Would you give the same defense for a business that offered anyone willing to publicly denounce god a discount?

Yep.

Private business, let it do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. There's no right to not have your god denounced, lol.

 

[93JC]

Yep.

Private business, let it do whatever it wants as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. There's no right to not have your god denounced, lol.

You have the right to not have to denounce your god to get a 15% discount at a restaurant.

 

[Avocado]

Interesting responses. To those approving of the prayer discount - I have a question:
Would you give the same defense for a business that offered anyone willing to publicly denounce god a discount?

I mean, religious people can just the game the system right?

This just got interesting!

I would disapprove of that discount even more strongly than the prayer discount. I am not religious, so I could, but just because somebody has a belief in a supernatural being, and doesn't want to renounce it, doesn't mean they should pay extra. As to why it is more offensive, I'm not sure.


That said, it IS a private bussiness, so I just wouldn't go there.

 

[skylights]

You have the right to not have to denounce your god to get a 15% discount at a restaurant.

I don't think so, though. It's not really anyone's right to be offered a certain price, beyond following (in the US) equal rights laws, which the restaurant does follow if they offer a set price otherwise. When I worked in a bakery we would give random discounts all the time, for people being nice or reminding us of family or not wanting to deal with them being grumpy, or whatever. I acknowledge that it's a weird rule, but it doesn't really step on anyone's toes. You could probably bow your head and mumble about underwear and still get the discount. Or you could just ask for it out of fairness. If they refused due to religion, that would be more legitimate ground for a lawsuit. As it is I feel like this is jumping the gun.

 

[93JC]

I don't think so, though. It's not really anyone's right to be offered a certain price, beyond following (in the US) equal rights laws, which the restaurant does follow if they offer a set price otherwise.

It's everyone's right to be offered an equal price that does not discriminate on religious grounds one way or the other.

You can offer a discount to someone because they're nice. You can't offer a discount to someone because they're black, or Christian, or a natural-born American citizen, because that's discriminatory.

 

[Mane]

it doesn't really step on anyone's toes. You could probably bow your head and mumble about underwear and still get the discount.

I find this entire line of argument interesting - the base thought is that it doesn't discriminate against atheists, because atheists can lie.
The holocaust didn't discriminate against Jews, because Jews could lie and produce fake lineage documentation saying they are of Aryan decedent (And many did).

 

[skylights]

It's everyone's right to be offered an equal price that does not discriminate on religious grounds one way or the other.

You can offer a discount to someone because they're nice. You can't offer a discount to someone because they're black, or Christian, or a natural-born American citizen, because that's discriminatory.

I find this entire line of argument interesting - the base thought is that it doesn't discriminate against atheists, because atheists can lie.
The holocaust didn't discriminate against Jews, because Jews could lie and produce fake lineage documentation saying they are of Aryan decedent (And many did).

In response to both of these - like I said, I think it's jumping the gun, because it hasn't been determined that the restaurant won't give discounts to people of other beliefs. I live less than an hour from the place, and since I am used to life, culture, and customs in this area, I have a suspicion that it was not meant to be religious discrimination as much as it was meant to be an encourager of what the owners think is positive behavior and mindset. I think they were trying to reward people for being true to themselves and their beliefs in public.

So, while on legal grounds I agree that it was approaching murky water, I do not think the intent was to be a discriminatory policy. I think this is more of a stupid mistake than an intentional violation, and that it is more useful to treat it as such. It's not really a line of argument, [MENTION=22098]Jarlaxle[/MENTION], it's just trying to see this for what it is. I think it's been blown up into something it was never meant to be, and I think the owners willingly (though clearly annoyed) pulling the discount is a demonstration of that.

I also think it is kind of funny that people are making a big deal of this case when we still have some blatant references to Christianity in government-funded places and events and Christian lawmakers arguing that we should include (their) religion in government. It just seems out of proportion to me. I suspect people who live in less religious areas may be more taken aback by this, but they might not realize that down here we still deal with legislators who are trying to get Christian prayers in public schools. To me that is way more concerning than a diner giving a dollar or two off a meal, because I can just choose to not spend my money at that diner, whereas my tax dollars are going to those schools.

 

[Mane]

In response to both of these - like I said, I think it's jumping the gun, because it hasn't been determined that the restaurant won't give discounts to people of other beliefs. I live less than an hour from the place, and since I am used to life, culture, and customs in this area, I have a suspicion that it was not meant to be religious discrimination as much as it was meant to be an encourager of what the owners think is positive behavior and mindset. I think they were trying to reward people for being true to themselves and their beliefs in public.

So, while on legal grounds I agree that it was approaching murky water, I do not think the intent was to be a discriminatory policy. I think this is more of a stupid mistake than an intentional violation, and that it is more useful to treat it as such.

To reward a manifestation (behavioral or otherwise) of the groups you belong too is to discriminate in favor of those groups, and to discriminate in favor of certain groups is to discriminate against other groups. The perceived difference between those is a false dichotomy rooted in framing - people don't view their own actions with ill-intent, they justify or ignore negative consequences with positive intents.

 

[skylights]

To reward a manifestation (behavioral or otherwise) of the groups you belong too is to discriminate in favor of those groups, and to discriminate in favor of certain groups is to discriminate against other groups. The perceived difference between those is a false dichotomy rooted in framing - people don't view their own actions with ill-intent, they justify or ignore negative consequences with positive intents.

So no discounts to anyone ever?

 

[Mane]

So no discounts to anyone ever?

I am not saying all discrimination is bad, I am just saying call it by it's name, and let the laws apply accordingly: Many restaurants discriminate in favor of people's who's birthday it is, there are hotels that discriminate in favor of newly weds, there are bars that discriminate in favor of whoever won the game of pool or darts, there are many businesses that give discounts for troops, the handicap, children or the elderly. There are also perfectly reasonable forms of discrimination, ranging from park rides that discriminate if your height places you in a dangerous position to Space X discriminating against people with heart conditions that are unlikely to survive a trip to orbit. But if we've determined that religion is off limit as a basis for discrimination, then it certainly applies in this case.

 

[skylights]

I am not saying all discrimination is bad, I am just saying call it by it's name, and let the laws apply accordingly: Many restaurants discriminate in favor of people's who's birthday it is, there are hotels that discriminate in favor of newly weds, there are bars that discriminate in favor of whoever won the game of pool or darts, there are many businesses that give discounts for troops, the handicap, children or the elderly. There are also perfectly reasonable forms of discrimination, ranging from park rides that discriminate if your height places you in a dangerous position to Space X discriminating against people with heart conditions that are unlikely to survive a trip to orbit. But if we've determined that religion is off limit as a basis for discrimination, then it certainly applies in this case.

That's fair.

My issue with this case is just a matter of proportion. I would like to see the big significant cases of discrimination handled with as much fervor and by the appropriate authorities as this small case has been handled by a third party.

 

[93JC]

In response to both of these - like I said, I think it's jumping the gun, because it hasn't been determined that the restaurant won't give discounts to people of other beliefs. I live less than an hour from the place, and since I am used to life, culture, and customs in this area, I have a suspicion that it was not meant to be religious discrimination as much as it was meant to be an encourager of what the owners think is positive behavior and mindset. I think they were trying to reward people for being true to themselves and their beliefs in public.

So, while on legal grounds I agree that it was approaching murky water, I do not think the intent was to be a discriminatory policy. I think this is more of a stupid mistake than an intentional violation, and that it is more useful to treat it as such.

As I said before:

You're right, I doubt very much that the people who own the restaurant are "wretched Christian frowny-faced assholes" (I'll have to remember that line for later use ), and I doubt they meant to be discriminatory. They probably didn't know any better and probably have never known any different than what they've been doing. But what you call "spreading niceness" is not so nice: it's giving preferential treatment to (predominantly) Christians. Giving a discount for praying before a meal is the same as charging extra for not having prayed. That's a big no-no. And you can't just compel atheists or anybody else who doesn't or won't pray to do something instead like "have a moment of silence", because it's just prayer by another name.

The law is very clear about it. It's not 'murky'. You can't "reward people for being true to ... their beliefs in public" because that's discriminatory. Being oblivious or ignorant of the law doesn't give you a free pass, despite good intentions.

I also think it is kind of funny that people are making a big deal of this case...

"People" aren't making a big deal about it.

...it's from foxnews.com.

And Fox News makes a big deal about it to pander to its audience.

 

[Jaguar]

And Fox News makes a big deal about it to pander to its audience.

I thought that was their business model. No?

 

[skylights]

The law is very clear about it. It's not 'murky'. You can't "reward people for being true to ... their beliefs in public" because that's discriminatory. Being oblivious or ignorant of the law doesn't give you a free pass, despite good intentions.

I mean, yeah, it'd be great if all separation of church and state cases could be this clear. I'd like to see the federal government held to the same standards.

"People" aren't making a big deal about it.

Like I said, I live near it. I hear from people who have actually been there and/or who frequent the place. Lol. I first heard about it from a friend who loves the place. I hate Fox News and do not consider it a valid news source. So, actually, people - real flesh and blood people! - are making a big deal out of it. I do totally think it's being overdone because of the backlash, and am annoyed by the hypocrisy. Many people who are angry that the law gets applied here but are the same people who want their belief systems put into law. Blech.

 

[93JC]

I thought that was their business model. No?

Of course that's its business model, a model it follows very thoroughly and consistently.