Atheist files complaint over restaurant's Sunday promotion

[Curious George]

Restaurant and retail discounts are not "systematic discrimination." Bring in your coupon.

not systematic , systemic

sys·tem·ic

   [si-stem-ik] Show IPA
adjective 1. of or pertaining to a system.

 

[Curious George]

wait, I am wrong about systemic. In order to be systemic it would need to have broad impact on the industry

 

[Curious George]

in light of that I would suggest that it is unpronounced or clandestine discrimination but discrimination nonetheless

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Isn't that what the restaurant did? Churchgoers are, apparently, the group most likely to be out on Sunday noon. hence, the bulletin discount.
So glad we agree.

No, the people who walk through the doors are the ones most likely to be out on Sunday noon. The restaurant doesn't offer this group a discount, it offers a subset of this group a discount (churchgoers). Most restaurants have discounts on slow days for everyone who walks through the door. Even this restaurant has "Tuesday discount". So why not have "Sunday discount"? Why only go after squares when you want rectangles, so to speak?

How are they excluding them? These folks are still welcome to come in and get a meal at the regular price, just like everyone else.

People who don't go to church are excluded from the discount.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Considering the way that you've been happy to twist and re-define them into non-existence, I don't believe you.

When your mental gymnastics require you to support the idea of a business giving a special discount to white people, you're clearly no longer on the side of civil rights.

 

[Willamena]

not systematic , systemic

My bad, sorry. It's not systemic discrimination, either.

 

[Willamena]

Considering the way that you've been happy to twist and re-define them into non-existence, I don't believe you.

When your mental gymnastics require you to support the idea of a business giving a special discount to white people, you're clearly no longer on the side of civil rights.

Fair enough. My arguments don't change for your criticism of me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. My arguments don't change for your criticism of me.

They haven't magically become valid, either.

If the rule wasn't worded as "blacks have to go to the back of the bus" but instead as "everyone can sit where they want, except we have a 'preferred seating' section at the front for our white passengers'," by the arguments you've given, Rosa Parks should've just sat down and shut up.

 

[Willamena]

They haven't magically become valid, either.

If the rule wasn't worded as "blacks have to go to the back of the bus" but instead as "everyone can sit where they want, except we have a 'preferred seating' section at the front for our white passengers'," by the arguments you've given, Rosa Parks should've just sat down and shut up.

They haven't magically become invalid, either.

(And, no--that illogic misrepresents my argument.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They haven't magically become invalid, either.

(And, no--that illogic misrepresents my argument.)

You have argued that if preferential treatment is offered in such a way that "normal" service isn't denied to anyone but preferred service is offered to one or more favoured groups, then this is acceptable. This is what you argued when you said that offering religious people a discount was okay, but charging non-religious people extra would not be.

How have I misinterpreted your argument?

 

[Willamena]

You have argued that if preferential treatment is offered in such a way that "normal" service isn't denied to anyone but preferred service is offered to one or more favoured groups, then this is acceptable. This is what you argued when you said that offering religious people a discount was okay, but charging non-religious people extra would not be.

How have I misinterpreted your argument?

Just to be clear, we're still talking about the common business practice of offering discounts, right?

There is no preferential treatment in a discount that includes a coupon. Whether or not they get the discount is in the customer's hands: acquire a coupon, get a discount.

There is arguably preferential treatment in a discount offered on a particular day at a particular time to a particular group whilst discounts are not offered to all groups, on all days at all times of day. However, even in that case the latter is simply a price mark-down disguised as an equality argument. It's only result will be the restaurant suffering in its business. In any case, there is no discrimination in a discount offered on a particular day at a particular time to a particular group, not because it is a common business practice but because no one is being treated unfairly because it is a common business practice.

You would have to support in arguments that offering a discount to a group is unfair when it's a common business practice. I'm open to hearing the arguments. Charging a group extra, on the other hand, is easily argued as "unfairness" to that group of people. It's not a common business practice.

(Re the bus example, if it's true that "anyone can sit anywhere" then it's false that there is preferred seating--and vice versa. The "rule" you made up is self-contradictory.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to be clear, we're still talking about the common business practice of offering discounts, right?

There is no preferential treatment in a discount that includes a coupon. Whether or not they get the discount is in the customer's hands: acquire a coupon, get a discount.

There is arguably preferential treatment in a discount offered on a particular day at a particular time to a particular group whilst discounts are not offered to all groups, on all days at all times of day. However, even in that case the latter is simply a price mark-down disguised as an equality argument. It's only result will be the restaurant suffering in its business. In any case, there is no discrimination in a discount offered on a particular day at a particular time to a particular group, not because it is a common business practice but because no one is being treated unfairly because it is a common business practice.

So it's not unfair not because it's a common business practice but because it's a common business practice? Are you even trying to make sense?

BTW: segregated seating on buses by race was a "common business practice" at one point, too, and even now, offering "preferred seating" at the front is common on many airlines.

You would have to support in arguments that offering a discount to a group is unfair when it's a common business practice. I'm open to hearing the arguments. Charging a group extra, on the other hand, is easily argued as "unfairness" to that group of people. It's not a common business practice.

(Re the bus example, if it's true that "anyone can sit anywhere" then it's false that there is preferred seating--and vice versa. The "rule" you made up is self-contradictory.)

It was based on the contradictory rule that you came up with: that having a "standard" price to which a discount is applied for some customers is okay because the remaining customers can still get the "standard" price, despite the fact that when some customers have access to a discounted price, the "standard" price can no longer be considered standard.

 

[Willamena]

So it's not unfair not because it's a common business practice but because it's a common business practice? Are you even trying to make sense?

If it's a common business practice, it is fair until it's not. Prove unfairness or abuse, and you are looking at discrimination; don't, and discrimination hasn't even entered the picture.

BTW: segregated seating on buses by race was a "common business practice" at one point, too, and even now, offering "preferred seating" at the front is common on many airlines.

But people were treated unfairly because of it, hence it was a common business practice that was discriminatory. The unfairness--the discrimination--in this case, was reflected in how people felt. If you honestly feel that as an atheist you are discriminated against by virtue of a religious group getting a discount on Sunday, then you should have to explain why you do not also feel discriminated against by virtue of children getting a discount on Tuesday. If it comes down to the particular "dividing lines" mentioned in the Civil Rights Act, then you are basing your hurt feelings on the law rather than discrimination or civil rights.

And that's okay, but it's not an argument for discrimination or about civil rights.

If no one felt they were treated unfairly by having to sit at the back of the bus, would we have a law about it? Would anyone even mind?

It was based on the contradictory rule that you came up with: that having a "standard" price to which a discount is applied for some customers is okay because the remaining customers can still get the "standard" price, despite the fact that when some customers have access to a discounted price, the "standard" price can no longer be considered standard.

On the contrary, I am the one who pointed out that having a discount doesn't affect the actual listed price of the meal.

Point out to me the unfairness of a discount to kids on Tuesdays, or to the birthday boy on his birthday. Tell me about hurt feelings, humiliation and being made to feel less than human because of it. Then I might believe you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I love my senior citizen discounts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it's a common business practice, it is fair until it's not. Prove unfairness or abuse, and you are looking at discrimination; don't, and discrimination hasn't even entered the picture.

You don't know what the word "discrimination" means. I think that's what this snipe hunt of a debate comes down to.

But people were treated unfairly because of it, hence it was a common business practice that was discriminatory. The unfairness--the discrimination--in this case, was reflected in how people felt. If you honestly feel that as an atheist you are discriminated against by virtue of a religious group getting a discount on Sunday, then you should have to explain why you do not also feel discriminated against by virtue of children getting a discount on Tuesday. If it comes down to the particular "dividing lines" mentioned in the Civil Rights Act, then you are basing your hurt feelings on the law rather than discrimination or civil rights.

And that's okay, but it's not an argument for discrimination or about civil rights.

Well, it is to the extent that these things are defined in law, but if I can unravel what you've said, it seems that you agree with me that the restaurant's conduct was illegal.

Congratulations: you agree with the point I've been trying to make this whole time. And it only took 70-odd pages of your red herrings for us to figure this out.

On the contrary, I am the one who pointed out that having a discount doesn't affect the actual listed price of the meal.

You're conflating two things here: the list price, which is what's on the menu, and the actual price, which is the amount of money a customer actually pays after all specials, discounts, and whatnot have been applied. These two things are not necessarily the same.

 

[Willamena]

You don't know what the word "discrimination" means. I think that's what this snipe hunt of a debate comes down to.

*shrug* If you want to play that card, fine.

Well, it is to the extent that these things are defined in law, but if I can unravel what you've said, it seems that you agree with me that the restaurant's conduct was illegal.

Congratulations: you agree with the point I've been trying to make this whole time. And it only took 70-odd pages of your red herrings for us to figure this out.

No, I don't agree with that.

I give up. If none of the words I'm saying or sentences I'm composing are meaningful for you, then this is a wasted effort.

 

[Curious George]

*shrug* If you want to play that card, fine.

would you agree with the legal definition of discrimination which I gave earlier?

 

[Willamena]

"Preferred seating" is not discrimination. It's not the reason Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat at the front of the bus.

 

[Willamena]

would you agree with the legal definition of discrimination which I gave earlier?

"Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

That's fine with me, if we take into consideration the context for it. In other words, why is it against the law to discriminate in this manner?

 

[Curious George]

"Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

That's fine with me, if we take into consideration the context for it. In other words, why is it against the law to discriminate in this manner?

it's not against the law to discriminate in this manner, it is only against the law to discriminate in this manner with respect to a "protected class."