Atheist files complaint over restaurant's Sunday promotion

[Willamena]

I don't like those senior citizen discounts either.

I do--I'm only 8 years away from one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When the qualifier for saying, "You can or can't do that," is religion, then it's discriminatory to employ the "can't." It's discriminatory to deny people something or prevent people from doing something because of religion--that's what "protecting" these groups is about. It's not discriminatory to employ the "can." It's not discriminatory to allow these groups things that you also allow to other groups.

To the extent that I can make sense of what you're saying, it seems that you're arguing that mentioning religion in any law amounts to discrimination. This is not true.

Discrimination on the basis of religion means inequitable treatment of people where the deciding factor on the difference in treatment is a difference of religion. Simply saying "don't treat customers differently because of their religion" is not religious discrimination. It's the exact opposite, in fact.

It wasn't discrimination on the basis of race to abolish segregation because it eliminated a law that denied something based on race or prevented people from doing something based on race: "this race cannot do this... this race cannot go to school here... this race cannot sit where others can on the bus."

Abolishing segregation took away the "can'ts."

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

That it is unfair for atheists not to be able to partake of a discount offered to religous folk is silly. It's equally unfair of civilian personnel not to be able to partake of a discount offered to veterans.

Whether a discount offered to veterans is fair or not is irrelevant. Such a discount wouldn't be illegal like it is when the deciding factor is religion.

 

[Willamena]

To the extent that I can make sense of what you're saying, it seems that you're arguing that mentioning religion in any law amounts to discrimination. This is not true.

No, I'm not saying that.

Discrimination on the basis of religion means inequitable treatment of people where the deciding factor on the difference in treatment is a difference of religion. Simply saying "don't treat customers differently because of their religion" is not religious discrimination. It's the exact opposite, in fact.

No, it means equitable treatment for religious people. Edit: I mean, that's what it's about. Treating religious folk and the other protected classes no different than the rest of society. To deny them a discount that (for example) veterans get is treating them differently.

To say that it means inequitable treatment of people where the deciding factor is religion itself is to discriminate against "religion" itself. It's to make the law about religion, and not about people.

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.

Whether a discount offered to veterans is fair or not is irrelevant. Such a discount wouldn't be illegal like it is when the deciding factor is religion.

Its fairness is irrelevant to our arguments, but not to its silliness.

 

[idav]

Its fairness is irrelevant to our arguments, but not to its silliness.

The silliness is to protect from unlawful discrimination. Giving special preference to a religious group makes it seem like discrimination is involved for the religions or non-religions not included.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it means equitable treatment for religious people. Edit: I mean, that's what it's about. Treating religious folk and the other protected classes no different than the rest of society. To deny them a discount that (for example) veterans get is treating them differently.

Ahhh... I get it now. You're operating from a misunderstanding. When they say that "religion" is a protected class, this doesn't mean that only religious people are protected. It means that the answer to the question "what is this person's religion?" cannot affect how the person is treated (with respect to public accommodation like restaurant service, anyhow).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That is true. Not the most ideal solution for running a business, but it's true.

I suspect the most ideal solution for running a business would be to extend the discount to include bulletins of all religious persuasions.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

The is/ought fallacy must be rearing its head here. That's not legal in the United States, Willamena. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Are you saying it OUGHT to be legal?

 

[sojourner]

When people are made to be disadvantaged on the basis of their religious views, then freedom of religion suffers.

He's not disadvantaged in that way, because he doesn't have a religious view. he has a humanist view. Atheism assumes the non-existence of deity, so a religious view cannot, by definition, be had.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He's not disadvantaged in that way, because he doesn't have a religious view. he has a humanist view. Atheism assumes the non-existence of deity, so a religious view cannot, by definition, be had.

"Views with respect to religion", then. Sheesh.

In any case, the US Supreme Court has upheld the fact that atheist views are entitled to regard and protection under laws protecting freedom of religion and prohibiting religious discrimination. If you don't like that, that's you're prerogative, but you're arguing for something other than the current state of the law, which is the thing at issue here.

 

[sojourner]

"Views with respect to religion", then. Sheesh.

In any case, the US Supreme Court has upheld the fact that atheist views are entitled to regard and protection under laws protecting freedom of religion and prohibiting religious discrimination. If you don't like that, that's you're prerogative, but you're arguing for something other than the current state of the law, which is the thing at issue here.

The law is freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion. Religion cannot be held to a different standard than other groups. Period.

This is the type of thinking that causes schools to punish students for mentioning God in graduation speeches. This has resulted in court cases that overwhelmingly result in God language being deemed OK.

The Civil Rights Act protects Christians from being discriminated against because they are Christian. It does not protect not-Christians from any preferential treatment offered to Christians.

 

[MartyrX]

I'm all for separation of Church and State. However this guy's complaint is silly. It's 10% off with a bulletin from a church. It doesn't mean you have to be a Christian.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The law is freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion. Religion cannot be held to a different standard than other groups. Period.

Note what you just said: "religion cannot be held to a different standard than other groups."

What this means to me, and what I believe the law requires here, is that just as it would be illegal for a restaurant to offer a discount based on race, it's illegal for it to offer a discount based on religion.

The Civil Rights Act protects Christians from being discriminated against because they are Christian. It does not protect not-Christians from any preferential treatment offered to Christians.

IOW, it does not protect non-Christians from being discriminated against for not being Christian?

Thankfully, the law and the courts disagree with you.

 

[Willamena]

Ahhh... I get it now. You're operating from a misunderstanding. When they say that "religion" is a protected class, this doesn't mean that only religious people are protected.

I understand that not only religious people are protected. The law applies to everyone.

Let me ask you this: what is the purpose of having the "protected classes"? "The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment" under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If someone is discriminated against because of their color, they are being treated unfairly because of their color. They are not being allowed into restaurants; they are being made to sit at the back of the bus or the back of the movie theatre; they are denied work. They are the ones being treated unfairly. They are not being treated like everyone else. If someone is being discriminated against because of their religion, they are being treated unfairly because of their religion. They are being denied employment because they are Jew instead of Christian; the are the ones being harassed at school because they are Serbian Christians instead of Muslim. The law applies to everyone, and everyone is protected, but it's about protecting the protected classes.

It means that the answer to the question "what is this person's religion?" cannot affect how the person is treated (with respect to public accommodation like restaurant service, anyhow).

That's well said. I'd go a step further and say if a religion question at all is used as a test to determine whether or not they get a 10% discount, that's discrimination. This is the part you don't seem to get: to say that "the church-goers" cannot be given a discount because of religion is discrimination against them.

 

[Willamena]

Note what you just said: "religion cannot be held to a different standard than other groups."

What this means to me, and what I believe the law requires here, is that just as it would be illegal for a restaurant to offer a discount based on race, it's illegal for it to offer a discount based on religion.

What is means to me is that the restaurant should be able to offer a discount regardless of race, religion, etc.

 

[Willamena]

The is/ought fallacy must be rearing its head here. That's not legal in the United States, Willamena. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Are you saying it OUGHT to be legal?

I was asked for my opinion, and I gave it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand that not only religious people are protected. The law applies to everyone.

Let me ask you this: what is the purpose of having the "protected classes"? "The term describes characteristics or factors which can not be targeted for discrimination and harassment" under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If someone is discriminated against because of their color, they are being treated unfairly because of their color. They are not being allowed into restaurants; they are being made to sit at the back of the bus or the back of the movie theatre; they are denied work. They are the ones being treated unfairly. They are not being treated like everyone else. If someone is being discriminated against because of their religion, they are being treated unfairly because of their religion. They are being denied employment because they are Jew instead of Christian; the are the ones being harassed at school because they are Serbian Christians instead of Muslim. The law applies to everyone, and everyone is protected, but it's about protecting the protected classes.

You're making up your own law. Here's what it actually says:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Note that it does not say "discrimination against" a group. Simply differentiating between two groups on the basis of religion (e.g. by differentiating between them based on whether they're religious or go to church) and treating them differently amounts to illegal discrimination under this law.

That's well said. I'd go a step further and say if a religion question at all is used as a test to determine whether or not they get a 10% discount, that's discrimination. This is the part you don't seem to get: to say that "the church-goers" cannot be given a discount because of religion is discrimination against them.

That's not "going a step further"; it contradicts what I said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was asked for my opinion, and I gave it.

Was that your opinion of the current state of the law, or your opinion of what the law should be?

 

[Willamena]

You're making up your own law. Here's what it actually says:

I'm not "making law," I'm debating interpretation on an Internet forum. As are you.

Note that it does not say "discrimination against" a group.

You are correct, but of course you left off the next bit that says:

No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (c) punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

That does talk about "discrimination against."

That's not "going a step further"; it contradicts what I said.

How so?

 

[Willamena]

Was that your opinion of the current state of the law, or your opinion of what the law should be?

Neither, of course. It was my opinion of what these civil rights mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not "making law," I'm debating interpretation on an Internet forum. As are you.

You're arguing for an "interpretation" that flies in the face of both the text of the law and how it's been applied. What you're arguing has little to no correlation with the actual law. You may as well be making it up from whole cloth.

IMO, your opinion of the law can be dismissed as completely unreliable. You said that in your "interpretation", it's legal in the US for a restaurant to offer a discount to white people, for crying out loud! If you really do think that this is legal, I can't fathom what would have made you think so.

You are correct, but of course you left off the next bit that says:

That does talk about "discrimination against."

They're independent clauses. One doesn't affect the implications of the other.

How so?

You're saying that a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion prohibits prohibition of discrimination on the basis of religion.