Atheist files complaint over restaurant's Sunday promotion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I understand that you're taking that position here, but you don't seem to understand that others arguing against you are not taking that position, too.

I got the sense that we were talking past each other, but at least in my case, this wasn't deliberate. I guess if you're going to approach this discussion in bad faith, then I suppose it's good that you're open about this now, at least.

It's "ostensibly."

Yeah - I can never remember how to spell that word.

You didn't answer why discrimination based on (particularly) religion is illegal.

The law is in place to prevent inequitable treatment of people on the basis of religion, but why religion?

I think it's partly because historically, people have used religious differences as the grounds to oppress people. It's been so horrendous in the past that lawmakers forbade any discrimination based on differences of religion.

However, the cynic in me also sees an underlying (though unspoken) rationale that goes like this: since religious beliefs are arbitrary, and since there is no "true" religion, discrimination on the basis of religion can serve no legitimate purpose.

While I'm sure that some people here will object to this, I think this underlies at least some of the spirit here, and why religious discrimination is lumped together with these other forms of discrimination. IMO, the implicit message is that when considering the measure of a person, religion, like race, gender, or skin colour, is irrelevant.

I'm sure that many people will dislike being told that their religious beliefs don't matter, but I think that this is at least part of the spirit behind the law here.

 

[Willamena]

I got the sense that we were talking past each other, but at least in my case, this wasn't deliberate. I guess if you're going to approach this discussion in bad faith, then I suppose it's good that you're open about this now, at least.

Which is to say that if we're not talking about your position or your argument, we're not talking anything either relevant or important. But we were, and we are: we're talking about civil rights, and we were arguing civil rights, not the law.

I think it's partly because historically, people have used religious differences as the grounds to oppress people. It's been so horrendous in the past that lawmakers forbade any discrimination based on differences of religion.

However, the cynic in me also sees an underlying (though unspoken) rationale that goes like this: since religious beliefs are arbitrary, and since there is no "true" religion, discrimination on the basis of religion can serve no legitimate purpose.

While I'm sure that some people here will object to this, I think this underlies at least some of the spirit here, and why religious discrimination is lumped together with these other forms of discrimination. IMO, the implicit message is that when considering the measure of a person, religion, like race, gender, or skin colour, is irrelevant.

I'm sure that many people will dislike being told that their religious beliefs don't matter, but I think that this is at least part of the spirit behind the law here.

Is it such a stretch to understand that because circumstances were "so horrendous" in the past that they had to make a law to prevent it, that the context for discrimination relevant to this law is the discrimination that treats one group unfairly?

 

[Willamena]

Do the Jim Crow laws or the names "Abraham Lincoln" and "Martin Luther King Jr." mean nothing to you people?

Anyway, I'm off for the weekend.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do the Jim Crow laws or the names "Abraham Lincoln" and "Martin Luther King Jr." mean nothing to you people?

Of course they do, but I think their examples speak against your argument, not in favour of it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Do the Jim Crow laws or the names "Abraham Lincoln" and "Martin Luther King Jr." mean nothing to you people?

Er, with all due respect m'am, we should be asking you that question:

So if a restaurant merely offered a 10% discount to white customers, this would be legal in your view?

Yes, as long as it was just a discount and not the actual price. Determining what a "white customer" is may be a bit of a challenge, but good luck to them. If, on the other hand, they had a 10% discount to everyone except so-and-so, I might protest unfairness.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I think you two need to actually read the article. The owner stated she does not attend any church and the sole reason for the promotion was to bring in more business on Sundays.

If you eat brunch at any restaurant on Sunday look around I am sure you will see some church goers. I could see why she would want to tap into this market. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[LongGe123]

You're right Yogi, but as Mr Spinkles pointed out, there is indeed a legal issue afoot. Whether or not she knew about it is a bit irrelevant, but it should be pretty easily resolved. The manager trod on a legal mine somewhat, but damage control is easily do-able.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

You're right Yogi, but as Mr Spinkles pointed out, there is indeed a legal issue afoot. Whether or not she knew about it is a bit irrelevant, but it should be pretty easily resolved. The manager trod on a legal mine somewhat, but damage control is easily do-able.

Sometimes I think we get lost in the details. I don't think this is a major thing, in comparison to the many areas in public life that Atheists are really discriminated against.

 

[LongGe123]

I just realised that my last post was basically the same thing said in two different ways, haha

 

[sojourner]

You can agree or disagree with those value judgments. As I said, they are subjective. One thing we can say objectively, however, is that forbidding discrimination based on religion is not, contrary to Willamena and sojourner's claims, itself a form of discrimination against any particular religion (or lack thereof). If an atheist restaurant owner offers you unequal services on the basis of your being / professing / practicing Christianity, or failing to be / profess / practice atheism, you are protected equally by the law.

The problem here, as I've maintained all along, is that the restauranteur doesn't ask and doesn't care what the patron's religion is. All the restauranteur cares about is the possession of a bulletin, which anyone -- Christian or not -- can obtain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem here, as I've maintained all along, is that the restauranteur doesn't ask and doesn't care what the patron's religion is. All the restauranteur cares about is the possession of a bulletin, which anyone -- Christian or not -- can obtain.

The fact that the religious test is done with a nod and a wink doesn't mean it's not a religious test.

Up here, where we still have Catholic school boards, they don't explicitly say that Catholic school teachers have to be Catholic themselves (since this would be illegal), but they do require that all applicants for teaching jobs provide a letter of recommendation from a Catholic priest.

This church bulletin thing seems to me to be a somewhat toned-down version of a similarly discriminatory practice.

Something just occurred to me, though: sojourner, would you still consider this non-discriminatory if the restaurant specified that the bulletin had to come from one particular church? Let's say you could only get the discount if you brought in a bulletin from the one Pentecostal church in town. Would you still say that this is okay?

Assume everything else is equal: anyone can just go in and get one, and a person going into that church is no more likely to be evangelized to than before.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The problem here, as I've maintained all along, is that the restauranteur doesn't ask and doesn't care what the patron's religion is. All the restauranteur cares about is the possession of a bulletin, which anyone -- Christian or not -- can obtain.

You mean, the possession of a Christian bulletin, not an atheist or Muslim bulletin. You're using the narrow interpretation, as I explained in post #623. You are correct that such a policy doesn't discriminate based on what religion a person professes. However, it does discriminate based on what religion a person practices and that is also illegal under the broad interpretation of "discrimination on the ground of religion" at "places of public accommodation".

 

[sojourner]

The fact that the religious test is done with a nod and a wink doesn't mean it's not a religious test.

Up here, where we still have Catholic school boards, they don't explicitly say that Catholic school teachers have to be Catholic themselves (since this would be illegal), but they do require that all applicants for teaching jobs provide a letter of recommendation from a Catholic priest.

This church bulletin thing seems to me to be a somewhat toned-down version of a similarly discriminatory practice.

Something just occurred to me, though: sojourner, would you still consider this non-discriminatory if the restaurant specified that the bulletin had to come from one particular church? Let's say you could only get the discount if you brought in a bulletin from the one Pentecostal church in town. Would you still say that this is okay?

Assume everything else is equal: anyone can just go in and get one, and a person going into that church is no more likely to be evangelized to than before.

Sure. Employees of certain hospitals get discounts. Why not?
Look, the whole Civil Rights thing was begun because of groups being denied things -- an attempt to level the playing field, saying that "who one is" cannot be taken into account. That's why things like sex, age, and address cannot be taken into consideration when making a decision.

No one is being denied fair service at a fair and posted price. A certain demographic has been identified as being likely to be out and around during a slow business time: Those who attend church on Sunday. It has nothing to do with "who the people are -- or are not." It has everything to do with "Who's out-and-about-right-now."

 

[sojourner]

You mean, the possession of a Christian bulletin, not an atheist or Muslim bulletin. You're using the narrow interpretation, as I explained in post #623. You are correct that such a policy doesn't discriminate based on what religion a person professes. However, it does discriminate based on what religion a person practices and that is also illegal under the broad interpretation of "discrimination on the ground of religion" at "places of public accommodation".

That's because church goers are likely to be out and about at the targeted slow time. If Sunday noon was the usual time for Jews to get out of worship, and there happened to be a lot of synagogues in the area, I'm sure the bulletin thingy would apply to them, and Christians, who meet on Friday night, would be excluded from the offer. You see, it really has nothing to do with religious profiling, but with "who's around right now."

Again, even those who don't practice Xy can go get a bulletin, so it really has nothing to do with "religious practice," either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's because church goers are likely to be out and about at the targeted slow time. If Sunday noon was the usual time for Jews to get out of worship, and there happened to be a lot of synagogues in the area, I'm sure the bulletin thingy would apply to them, and Christians, who meet on Friday night, would be excluded from the offer. You see, it really has nothing to do with religious profiling, but with "who's around right now."

Again, even those who don't practice Xy can go get a bulletin, so it really has nothing to do with "religious practice," either.

Anyone who walks through the door of the restaurant at that particular time on that particular day of the week is "who's around right now."

 

[sojourner]

Anyone who walks through the door of the restaurant at that particular time on that particular day of the week is "who's around right now."

Right. The promo is to get more of those people to walk through the doors -- not Christians, or religious, or non-religious, or marginally-religious -- simply "those who are likely to be out and about right now. They identified church goers as the most likely group, so they offered a promo to that group based on availability, not religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. The promo is to get more of those people to walk through the doors -- not Christians, or religious, or non-religious, or marginally-religious -- simply "those who are likely to be out and about right now. They identified church goers as the most likely group, so they offered a promo to that group based on availability, not religion.

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.

 

[Willamena]

Er, with all due respect m'am, we should be asking you that question:

I stand by my arguments. There is no discrimination in the picture you presented: discrimination is not inherent of the discount offered based on race or religion*. The issue of "discrimination" only enters the picture when someone takes issue with the discount--as John Wolff did--because they see it as unfair, and then whether it counts as discrimination in this case is an issue for the law to decide. "Discrimination" is when someone feels they are being treated unfairly.

*To say it is is in itself discrimination based on race or religion, because it is to say that the law must exempt certain discounts based on those characteristics and I'm not the only person who would take issue with being exempted from a discount just because I'm white.

 

[Curious George]

I have always heard when dealing with civil rights that a good litmus test to determine whether a practice is discriminatory is to take the protected class in question and insert another protected class. So, were this restaurant to offer a discount to those who provided a kkk bulletin would we find the practice discriminatory then? Now I do not know if there are KKK bulletins but supposing there were. A person of any race could theoretically obtain said bulletin. They would not have to belong to the KKK.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's because church goers are likely to be out and about at the targeted slow time. If Sunday noon was the usual time for Jews to get out of worship, and there happened to be a lot of synagogues in the area, I'm sure the bulletin thingy would apply to them, and Christians, who meet on Friday night, would be excluded from the offer. You see, it really has nothing to do with religious profiling, but with "who's around right now."

Penguin answered this very well. The best way to offer a discount to "who's around" on Sunday is to have a Sunday discount. I can hear your objection already: could having a Sunday discount for everyone, instead of a church bulletin discount, dampen the enthusiasm of churchgoers to come to the restaurant? Well, it shouldn't, since they get the same discount either way. Could it be that the restaurant's recognition/advertisement/approval/promotion of going to church, excluding people who don't go to church, is part of the appeal of a "church bulletin" discount versus a "Sunday discount"? But that's a Civil Rights no-no at a "place of public accommodation".

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.

Again, even those who don't practice Xy can go get a bulletin, so it really has nothing to do with "religious practice," either.

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".

Given that correction, what you said is specious wordplay at best, a non-sequitur at worst.