Restaurant rescinds prayer discount

Kittamaru said:
How do you figure? They give the stuff to the public servants that have chosen careers that require them to be out on the street over their holidays as opposed to at home with their families as a show of support

Likewise, this place was giving a discount to people that chose to pray in public.

It's a fine line, but technically it is legal.

Now, am I saying it's moral or that I agree with it? No. I think it's a good way to cause a ruckus...
Click to expand...

Discounts are legal. Discounts on the basis of a protected class, ie. race, color, religion, or national origin... are not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
 
billvon said:
Or they could just decide to not pray. Or go somewhere else. Their choice.
Click to expand...

The same for theists at a business giving discounts to atheists & for blacks at a business giving discounts to whites. How about a higher salary for those who pray on the job. If you don't like it, you do not have to work there.
 
Enmos said:
Dude, it's your bible ;)
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point - in general, it's accepted to be a set of moral guidelines established to help provide guidance in a "big scary world", not something that can be followed verbatim, especially so long after it was originally written
 
spidergoat said:
Discounts are legal. Discounts on the basis of a protected class, ie. race, color, religion, or national origin... are not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
Click to expand...

Okay, here's an example:

My church has a "family fund" that members of the church can request aid from in the event of financial distress - it is only for members of the church (it has other funds for things outside the membership).
By the definition of the law, this practice would be illegal.
 
Kittamaru said:
Which is exactly my point - in general, it's accepted to be a set of moral guidelines established to help provide guidance in a "big scary world", not something that can be followed verbatim, especially so long after it was originally written
Click to expand...

In general, it is pretended to be the infallible, absolute, totally true moral guide to be followed exactly.
 
Kittamaru said:
Okay, here's an example:

My church has a "family fund" that members of the church can request aid from in the event of financial distress - it is only for members of the church (it has other funds for things outside the membership).
By the definition of the law, this practice would be illegal.
Click to expand...

Not quite an equal parallel.
 
Kittamaru said:
Again, how do you figure; this is the second time you have said as such without providing either an example or any sort of explanation... honestly, it's starting to feel a little troll-esque...
Click to expand...

Honestly, you have not shown how they are. You say they are equal. I say they are not. I should not have to prove or disprove your unsupported claim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
billvon said:
"making people more holy"
Click to expand...
Might that have been the idea behind this fiasco all along?

billvon said:
(If they were dicks about it they probably wouldn't get the discount.)
Click to expand...
They are dicks anyway for making up such a discount policy.

billvon said:
Or they could just decide to not pray. Or go somewhere else. Their choice.
Click to expand...
Well, why not start a restaurant where some minority has to pay twice as much as anyone else. They have a choice after all.

billvon said:
Because in both cases, you have people playing at being something they're not to get a discount (which seems to be the crux of your issue.)
Click to expand...
They don't have to convince the people that they are really pirates, do they?
The atheist do have to convince the restaurant that they are praying. Otherwise why didn't the restaurant say: "everyone that folds their hands will get a discount."?
Praying is a specifically religious act. So they are actively excluding a minority from the discount. It's just plain wrong. And they probably knew it otherwise they would have gone to court.
 
Kittamaru said:
Okay, here's an example:

My church has a "family fund" that members of the church can request aid from in the event of financial distress - it is only for members of the church (it has other funds for things outside the membership).
By the definition of the law, this practice would be illegal.
Click to expand...
No, "Religious organizations" are exempt as a public accommodation. Just read the law, it's all in there.

(e) Private establishments
The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
 
billvon said:
That's too bad. It would have been fun to see the brouhaha that might have resulted when a few Wiccans went there and did a Imbolc meal blessing. "Oh, yeah, about that prayer discount - we only honor it for official Gods."
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it would be plural.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Honestly, you have not shown how they are. You say they are equal. I say they are not. I should not have to prove or disprove your unsupported claim.
Click to expand...

Right...

I said:
Kittamaru said:
Not quite an equal parallel - now, if they were only giving discounts to people of a specific religion that prayed, then you'd be spot on; I don't know the details on that to say what they were or were not doing for sure.

It's sort of like how I know several small coffee shops that give free coffee and sometimes a free bagel/doughnut/muffin etc to EMT's, Police Officers, and Firefighters on holidays - it's sort of their way of saying "thank you for your service".
Click to expand...

You said:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
That is not quite an equal parallel.
Click to expand...

Offering zero explanation on how or why they are supposedly not equal.

I said:
Kittamaru said:
Okay, here's an example:

My church has a "family fund" that members of the church can request aid from in the event of financial distress - it is only for members of the church (it has other funds for things outside the membership).
By the definition of the law, this practice would be illegal.
Click to expand...


You said:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Not quite an equal parallel.
Click to expand...

Again, without explanation on how or why they are supposedly not equal.

At this point, I can only assume you to be attempting to troll and are otherwise incapable of supporting your position; that said, I accept your acquiescence of my point.

spidergoat said:
No, "Religious organizations" are exempt as a public accommodation. Just read the law, it's all in there.

(e) Private establishments
The provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b) of this section.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
Click to expand...

Hm... fair enough - I apologize, I was not aware how exacting the law was in this regard... especially given the recent decision by the Supreme Court that a business can refuse to cover contraceptives for its workers on "religious grounds"...

Odd that... we can refuse to cover treatment for contraceptives for a woman, even though they are often used to help relieve or reduce the symptoms of her period and not JUST for birth control... yet offering a discount to someone with similar religious views is apparently illegal.

*scratches head* I say again... as a country, we are so boned.
 
Kittamaru said:
Hm... fair enough - I apologize, I was not aware how exacting the law was in this regard... especially given the recent decision by the Supreme Court that a business can refuse to cover contraceptives for its workers on "religious grounds"...

Odd that... we can refuse to cover treatment for contraceptives for a woman, even though they are often used to help relieve or reduce the symptoms of her period and not JUST for birth control... yet offering a discount to someone with similar religious views is apparently illegal.

*scratches head* I say again... as a country, we are so boned.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the company is not discriminating between workers. They cover none of their workers. It's still idiotic though, imo.
 
Kittamaru said:
...



Hm... fair enough - I apologize, I was not aware how exacting the law was in this regard... especially given the recent decision by the Supreme Court that a business can refuse to cover contraceptives for its workers on "religious grounds"...

Odd that... we can refuse to cover treatment for contraceptives for a woman, even though they are often used to help relieve or reduce the symptoms of her period and not JUST for birth control... yet offering a discount to someone with similar religious views is apparently illegal.

*scratches head* I say again... as a country, we are so boned.
Click to expand...
If it seems odd, that's because the Supreme Court has a majority of religious conservatives. And their decision was incorrect in my opinion.
 
Enmos said:
The difference is that the company is not discriminating between workers. They cover none of their workers. It's still idiotic though, imo.
Click to expand...

It's still on the grounds of religious differences though... bah, this country is fubar XD
 
Kittamaru said:
It's still on the grounds of religious differences though... bah, this country is fubar XD
Click to expand...

Yes, it is becoming too conservative...Atheist Conservative. I find the atheist theory to be funny. It is akin to saying "hey, i know Gliese 832c has no oceans". ba ha ha ha ha....
 
Sylvester said:
Yes, it is becoming too conservative...Atheist Conservative. I find the atheist theory to be funny. It is akin to saying "hey, i know Gliese 832c has no oceans". ba ha ha ha ha....
Click to expand...
Few atheists I know say they know there is no God. We just don't believe there is one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top