That's clearly a non-sequitur. A person can discriminate based on religion without any intention to discriminate based on religion (e.g., out of thoughtlessness). That's why the relevant section of the Civil Rights Act talks about effects only, not intentions.
You're inserting your own words in place of the carefully-chosen wording of the law. The relevant section of the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with violence and makes no distinction between historically, presently, soon-to-be or never-to-be oppressed groups. Your phrase "religious people" appears nowhere in the section, but "
discrimination ... on the ground of ... religion" does appear (emphasis added).
I based my argument on what the law
actually says in
post #514.
I would indeed be pwned if your premises were correct. But they aren't.
Your first premise is wrong because the law protects, and I quote, "
All persons ...", not just certain groups. Anyone, of any race or religion--including people who aren't religious--could be denied equal privileges "
on the ground of ... religion", and that's what the law addresses. The law doesn't forbid discrimination
against certain groups, it protects "
All persons" from discrimination
on those grounds.
Your second premise is clearly wrong. Draw a Venn diagram. "
People with a church bulletin" is one circle. "
People who are usually and likely to be out around noon on Sunday" is another circle. I myself am "
usually and likely to be out around noon on Sunday" as is my wife and my father. We meet every Sunday morning for brunch and coffee at a local cafe. That's
our ritual, and as former Christians,
not going to church on Sunday, as we were forced to growing up, is meaningful to my wife and I and an important part of our lives and our adulthood freedom of conscience and religious affiliation. So why not include me--an admitted minority in a city of churchgoers--in any Sunday promotions? What advantage is there in having a
church bulletin discount, rather than a
Sunday discount for everyone? The only conceivable advantage is that a
church bulletin discount promotes/endorses/advertises/rewards/celebrates going to church on Sundays. A generic Sunday discount, on the other hand, wouldn't elevate the practice of going to church above not going (or going to mosque). Again: that's a Civil Rights no-no for places of public accommodation.
This argument is wrong on two levels. First, as I said above, all the words and phrases you put in quotes--"normal", "religious people","everyone else"--as well as other words such as "systematically" and "violence", are entirely your own. Those words do not actually appear in the relevant section of the law. Looking at the actual law, you have made a crucial concession when you admit the policy "
favors ... religious people".
Second, even if we accepted your premises your conclusion is still wrong. You say the discount "
favors ... religious people" but that's not quite correct: the discount favors some religious people, but not other religious people, e.g. Muslims and Hindus. This is especially egregious considering that, according to your own arguments, the tiny Muslim and Hindu minority should be afforded extra vigilance and protection due to their historical systematic oppression in a majority Christian country.