Atheist files complaint over restaurant's Sunday promotion

[Willamena]

Penguin answered this very well. The best way to offer a discount to "who's around" on Sunday is to have a Sunday discount.

But that's telling the business class how to do their business, and (even worse) if you make it dependent upon law, that is the law telling people how to do their business.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, the law does tell the business how to do their business and thank goodness for that

 

[Willamena]

1) Discrimination is inherent of a division made based on the characteristics listed in the Civil Rights Act; 2) Discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on a characteristic, especially those listed in the Civil Rights Act.

This, in #1, is what some have argued in this thread that I feel does not represent either civil rights nor the spirit of the Civil Rights Act: What are we being protected from by virtue of having a Civil Rights Act? We are being protected from the division, which is to say that we are being protected from "racial distinctions, religious distinctions, gender distinctions, age distinctions, etc." Why are these particular divisions illegal? Because the Civil Rights Act says so.

I argue that just having that division is not discrimination that we need being protected from. To say so implies that we should not be distinct, we should not have divisions of race, religion, gender, etc. It implies that "equality" is us being all the same--but that doesn't reflect civil rights, it abuses it. We do have discounts for kids on Tuesdays. We do have separate washrooms for women and men. We do have gay pride. We are not being made generic by having the Civil Rights Act.

What the Civil Rights Act protects us from is the distinction that makes us unequal unfairly: that holds us back from jobs or prevents us from a decent salary; that makes us stand a table, because "your race are not allowed to sit" by the letter of the rule, or sit at the back of a bus. Civil rights protect us from the distinction that segregates us unfairly, it does not protect us from any and all segregation. The former is good reason for a law, the latter isn't.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But that's telling the business class how to do their business, and (even worse) if you make it dependent upon law, that is the law telling people how to do their business.

That's only a problem if there is no good justification for it (the fire code = the law telling people how to do their business, too). So you're just begging the question.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What the Civil Rights Act protects us from is the distinction that makes us unequal unfairly: that holds us back from jobs or prevents us from a decent salary; that makes us stand a table, because "your race are not allowed to sit" by the letter of the rule, or sit at the back of a bus. Civil rights protect us from the distinction that segregates us unfairly, it does not protect us from any and all segregation. The former is good reason for a law, the latter isn't.

Yes, you are exactly right, Willamena. The only thing I would add is this:

What the Civil Rights Act protects us from is the distinction that makes us unequal unfairly: that holds us back from jobs or prevents us from a decent salary; that makes us stand a table, because "your race are not allowed to sit" by the letter of the rule, or sit at the back of a bus.

... or the unfair and unequal treatment due to a person choosing (or not choosing) to practice a particular religion, choosing go to a particular place of worship (or not), possessing literature from a particular religion (vs. some other religion), etc.

 

[Willamena]

That's only a problem if there is no good justification for it (the fire code = the law telling people how to do their business, too). So you're just begging the question.

That's entirely true, but John Wolff browsing the Internet and taking exception to an ad isn't good reason in my opinion.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, you are exactly right, Willamena. The only thing I would add is this:

... or the unfair and unequal treatment due to a person choosing (or not choosing) to practice a particular religion, choosing go to a particular place of worship (or not), possessing literature from a particular religion (vs. some other religion), etc.

Who was treated unfairly? and in what way?

Edit: What I am looking for is the arguments that would support John Wolff/people of non-religious persuasion in this case, in light of #2 above. I can't come up with any, myself.

 

[sojourner]

But this makes no sense. A person out for a walk on a Sunday afternoon who walks by the restaurant is part of that group, too, but that person is explicitly excluded.

"A person who happens to be out for a walk" is not part of the identified group that "are usually available at this time on this day." It does make sense.

 

[sojourner]

Tangentially, I would add that no one is accusing the restaurant owner of deliberately violating the law, or of having malicious instead of benevolent motives.

Well, that would certainly be the litmus test for whether discrimination based on religion is happening. These laws are enacted to deter systematic violence against groups that have historically been oppressed. Since no one is oppressing the protected group of "religious people" by offering them a discount, I'd have to say that the law is not being broken here.

First: you continue to call it a "bulletin" policy even though I have repeatedly and accurately informed you that it is a church bulletin policy. It is dishonest for you to keep pretending that this is just about "bulletins".

Weak. At best. Everyone knows what's being talked about here. I'm not pretending anything. But if you need mollification -- OK -- "church bulletin." It changes nothing about my argument. In fact, it bolsters it.

First, a church bulletin (according to you) identifies the holder as part of a protected group. The laws protect protected groups against oppression. The discount does not oppress the target group.
Second, a church bulletin merely identifies one as a member of the group the restaurant has targeted for a sale: "Those who are usually and likely to be out on Sunday noon." Why? Because church lets out about noon on Sunday. Since the restaurant is trying to bolster its Sunday noon sales, it makes sense to target a group that would normally be out at that time, yes?

Pwned.

 

[sojourner]

Let's be clear: The civil rights laws were enacted in order to quell systematic violence against and oppression of groups that have been historically subject to such violence and oppression. Therefore, we can assume that the law targets acts that seek to exclude the protected group -- not the "normal" group. In this case, the protected group is "religious people." The "normal" group is "everyone else" (including atheists and non-churchgoers).

Since the discount favors the protected group, the law has not been violated. It would have to be shown that the "normal (unprotected) group" has been systematically subject to violence or oppression in order for the law to protect them. In this case, a 10% crap-asp discount doesn't cut the mustard. Especially when the target group isn't specifically "religious people," but simply "those who are likely to be -- and usually are -- out on Sunday noon."

 

[Tristesse]

Let's be clear: The civil rights laws were enacted in order to quell systematic violence against and oppression of groups that have been historically subject to such violence and oppression. Therefore, we can assume that the law targets acts that seek to exclude the protected group -- not the "normal" group. In this case, the protected group is "religious people." The "normal" group is "everyone else" (including atheists and non-churchgoers).

Since the discount favors the protected group, the law has not been violated. It would have to be shown that the "normal (unprotected) group" has been systematically subject to violence or oppression in order for the law to protect them. In this case, a 10% crap-asp discount doesn't cut the mustard. Especially when the target group isn't specifically "religious people," but simply "those who are likely to be -- and usually are -- out on Sunday noon."

It doesn't matter "why" they were enacted, it only matters what they protect. If this promotion that the resteraunt had, gave you a discount on your meal for bringing in a KKK pamphlet, I don't think this would be taken as light heartedly. Civil right are to protect individuals from descrimination, not just groups of people who have been subjected to violence or a oppression.

 

[Willamena]

Let's be clear: The civil rights laws were enacted in order to quell systematic violence against and oppression of groups that have been historically subject to such violence and oppression. Therefore, we can assume that the law targets acts that seek to exclude the protected group -- not the "normal" group. In this case, the protected group is "religious people." The "normal" group is "everyone else" (including atheists and non-churchgoers).

Since the discount favors the protected group, the law has not been violated. It would have to be shown that the "normal (unprotected) group" has been systematically subject to violence or oppression in order for the law to protect them. In this case, a 10% crap-asp discount doesn't cut the mustard. Especially when the target group isn't specifically "religious people," but simply "those who are likely to be -- and usually are -- out on Sunday noon."

Even that is a narrower view than I personally would take with civil rights. Abuse doesn't have to be violent or even physical for it to matter in relation to "unfair treatment"--Rosie Parks is a good example. And I'm uncertain that interpreting "protected class" as "religious people" for this case is entirely correct, but I'll waive that part of the argument because I think there are stronger areas to argue.

I do strongly protest the idea that the law protects the religious group simply because the discount favors them. In my opinion, that's defaulting to #1 above, and misrepresents what civil rights are about. I'll have to think about a good line of argument for that.

Edit: I take that back--it's a third case, the one that says that civil rights exist to protect the protected classes. Civil rights apply to us all. If some case can be made to say that another religious group or non-religious group is discriminated against, the fact that the discount favours a religious group shouldn't matter--as in the LDS case. So far, the only discrimination case argued has been that atheists can't partake of the discount, which isn't entirely true.

 

[Revoltingest]

I chuckle when I see that this thread still thrives!
Even the simplest things can be made complicated & contentious.
(And I'm not above stirring the pot.)

 

[Willamena]

I chuckle when I see that this thread still thrives!
Even the simplest things can be made complicated & contentious.
(And I'm not above stirring the pot.)

Civil rights matter. And it's something I feel strongly about.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's entirely true, but John Wolff browsing the Internet and taking exception to an ad isn't good reason in my opinion.

Oh, as I said earlier, that may be true. But you and sojourner are arguing that it would be okay even if John Wolff went to the restaurant with an atheist bulletin and was denied the same privileges as church-bulletin-holders. That's where we disagree. And perhaps I should leave the last word to you (as I promised to do earlier) since, given your stated opinions on racial discrimination, there is a gulf between our opinions that cannot be bridged on this thread.

 

[Curious George]

1) Discrimination is inherent of a division made based on the characteristics listed in the Civil Rights Act; 2) Discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment based on a characteristic, especially those listed in the Civil Rights Act.

This, in #1, is what some have argued in this thread that I feel does not represent either civil rights nor the spirit of the Civil Rights Act: What are we being protected from by virtue of having a Civil Rights Act? We are being protected from the division, which is to say that we are being protected from "racial distinctions, religious distinctions, gender distinctions, age distinctions, etc." Why are these particular divisions illegal? Because the Civil Rights Act says so.

so you would not consider it discrimination if instead of a church bulletin one was asked to bring in a kkk flyer?

I argue that just having that division is not discrimination that we need being protected from. To say so implies that we should not be distinct, we should not have divisions of race, religion, gender, etc. It implies that "equality" is us being all the same--but that doesn't reflect civil rights, it abuses it. We do have discounts for kids on Tuesdays. We do have separate washrooms for women and men. We do have gay pride. We are not being made generic by having the Civil Rights Act.

What the Civil Rights Act protects us from is the distinction that makes us unequal unfairly: that holds us back from jobs or prevents us from a decent salary; that makes us stand a table, because "your race are not allowed to sit" by the letter of the rule, or sit at the back of a bus. Civil rights protect us from the distinction that segregates us unfairly, it does not protect us from any and all segregation. The former is good reason for a law, the latter isn't.

did i just hear you argue for separate but equal. and no to say so does not imply that we "should not be distinct." Rather to say so implies that the distinction should come from character, personality, and temperament.

 

[Curious George]

That's entirely true, but John Wolff browsing the Internet and taking exception to an ad isn't good reason in my opinion.

I would suggest that you do not know the whole story here. However, perhaps he was browsing the internet in order to find just this type of ad. After finding this type of ad he plans to help build case law precedence which will further establish the division of church and state. I think that is a pretty noble reason and not necessarily the willy-nilly type of reasoning that you suggested. I am not saying that you are wrong or that the reasoning I put forth was Mr. Wolff's: I am simply stating that it is possible there are other motives involved.

 

[Willamena]

Oh, as I said earlier, that may be true. But you and sojourner are arguing that it would be okay even if John Wolff went to the restaurant with an atheist bulletin and was denied the same privileges as church-bulletin-holders. That's where we disagree. And perhaps I should leave the last word to you (as I promised to do earlier) since, given your stated opinions on racial discrimination, there is a gulf between our opinions that cannot be bridged on this thread.

I don't recall arguing that--I'm sorry if I did. I do recall arguing that civil rights is about "inequality" and not about "equality," and that everyone is not entitled to a discount just because one group got a discount--and especially that everyone is not entitled to a discount just because a religious group got a discount.

 

[Willamena]

Civil rights isn't about leveling the playing field along those "dividing lines" outlined in the Act. It is about leveling the playing field for people treated unfairly because of those "dividing lines." A discount offers conditions by which to claim it. Those who do not meet the conditions for a discount are not "treated unfairly," unless they want to defy what a discount is.

 

[Curious George]

I don't recall arguing that--I'm sorry if I did. I do recall arguing that civil rights is about "inequality" and not about "equality," and that everyone is not entitled to a discount just because one group got a discount--and especially that everyone is not entitled to a discount just because a religious group got a discount.

Yes and their is an inequality present when a public establishment offers preferential treatment based characteristics of a protected class. In fact, we have seen this before when restaurants refused service based on race. Granted, this discriminatory practice is not as blatant however most discrimination today is more systemic than the discrimination of the past. Perhaps if we switch the scenario a little we can understand why. Say I rented apartments and I wanted to create a complex of knowledge. Therefore I gave a discount to those who had college degrees. Outwardly this does not seem discriminatory, after all anyone can get a degree. However, when you take into consideration that a disproportionate amount of minority families do not have college degrees then you understand where the inequality lies. The same is true for the restaurant business. If I offer preferential treatment to those whom obtain Church bulletins then outwardly there is no major sign of discrimination. However when you take into account that one particular group- Christians- have much greater access to church bulletins than do those of other religions or those whom have no religion at all then you realize that I am giving preferential treatment to Christians.