Atheists Threaten to Sue Restaurant for Giving Discounts to Patrons Who Pray Before Meals

Apparently if you go to Mary’s Gourmet Diner in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and you pray before your meal you get a discount for “public prayer.” Now atheists are suing to stop this private business from indulging this business practice.

Of course, like in nearly every case, the atheists have no real legitimate beef. But that doesn’t stop them from using the law as a weapon to destroy religion.

The militant atheist group Freedom From Religion sent a letter to the restaurant threatening to sue if they didn’t stop the practice. Sadly, the restaurant was frightened into acquiescing.

A North Carolina diner has stopped issuing discounts to customers who pray before devouring their meals.

Mary’s Gourmet Diner has been quietly offering the 15% “praying in public” discount for the past four years–but after the story went viral, co-owner Mary Haglund said she feared a lawsuit would come slamming down on her little shop.

The owner of the restaurant says that the discount was for anyone who prays before a meal, from any religious affiliation, and she neither asked nor did she care what the prayer was about or from what religious affiliation it originated.

But the hate-filled atheists are employing their “lawfare” attacks, anyway.

Come on. Is it really the business of these atheists if a restaurant wants to give discounts for prayer? How is that “discriminating” against anyone? If they are still happily serving non-prayers, giving them the same service as people who pray, then there is no “discrimination” happening.

NASCAR Champ Tony Stewart Runs Over Kevin Ward Jr. In On Track Altercation
Ann Coulter Becomes Unhinged
  • sarah

    I know an Atheist, who was raised a Christian.

    That person has views similar to those stated in this article.

    I think many times the person pushes their points of view on others because

    they want attention.

  • Brucehenry

    You are right about this one. It is nobody’s business to whom and for what reason this restaurant offers discounts, except the restaurant’s. It’s as silly as if people under 65 were threatening to sue the joint for offering a senior discount. Stupid.

    This particular atheist group is way out of line.

    Many many restaurants in NC, including those I worked in, routinely offer “Church Bulletin Discounts” on Sundays and Wednesday nights. I never heard of anyone threatening to sue them.

    • Brian Westley

      It is nobody’s business to whom and for what reason this restaurant offers discounts, except the restaurant’s.

      No, it’s also the business of the 1964 civil rights act, which doesn’t allow discounts based on religion (or religious rituals).

      • Brucehenry

        I think I’d need you to cite the specific language that says that in the Act. I doubt that’s in there. Prove me wrong.

        And if it is, as a lifelong liberal, is my face red or what?! Because I used to have church receipt refund programs in the restaurants I managed. I would have a local church appoint a designee to collect the receipts of all its members and turn them in to me once a month. I would add them up and send a check to the church for 10% of the net. Since many receipts were never collected by the designee, I would actually not be refunding anything like 10% really. I’d hate to think I was violating the CRA lol.

        I wasn’t promoting religion — I was trying to promote repeat business.

        • Brian Westley

          OK.

          Title II

          42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

          42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)

          (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

          Now, if a restaurant that meets the definition of a public accommodation (which this does) gives discounts based on what religious rituals the customer might perform, that would mean that customers that never perform such acts are not receiving equal enjoyment of the services, as they can never get the discount.

          • jim_m

            It does not guarantee equal access to discounts (since you can give discounts to the elderly or children, all of which are legal). Nor is anyone being denied service, which is what the law is talking about. Everyone gets the same service and pricing and if they voluntarily go the prescribed behavior they get a discount. That behavior is not limited to anyone and everyone is capable of complying, even atheists.

            As soon as you explain why giving a senior citizen discount does not violate your rights I will take you seriously, otherwise you are an ignorant, intolerant fool who fails to understand what the law actually says.

            What you object to is the idea of religion being visible in public and that when visible it isn’t being criticized or condemned.

          • Brian Westley

            It does not guarantee equal access to discounts (since you can give discounts to the elderly or children, all of which are legal).

            The 1964 civil rights act does not prohibit discounts on the basis of age. Notice it reads “race, color, religion, or national origin”. Not age.

            Nor is anyone being denied service, which is what the law is talking about.

            “Full and equal” means you can’t charge different prices based on “race, color, religion, or national origin”.

            As soon as you explain why giving a senior citizen discount does not violate your rights I will take you seriously

            Because if you read what I wrote, you’ll notice “age” is not in the list “race, color, religion, or national origin”.

            otherwise you are an ignorant, intolerant fool who fails to understand what the law actually says.

            Nail, thumb, bang.

          • jim_m

            Age is also a protected class statutorily or did you not know that?

            Everyone is being charged the same price. Some are getting a discount for performing a specific behavior that is non exclusionary. Show me where anyone is being charged a different price before the discount.

            Once more you have proven nothing but your ignorance and intolerance.

          • Brian Westley

            Age is also a protected class statutorily or did you not know that?

            Not when it comes to restaurants, no, that’s why they can offer discounts tied to age. If it was illegal, there would be lawsuits.

          • jim_m

            Um, yes it is. If you refused service based on age you would have a lawsuit.

          • Brian Westley

            Refuse service is not the same. And some establishments refuse service based on age, theaters running an R-rated movie can turn away minors.

          • jim_m

            Exactly my point. Atheists can get service and they can get the discount.

            You have yet to explain why an atheist cannot get this discount other than atheists are too intolerant to comply

          • Brian Westley

            Exactly my point. Atheists can get service and they can get the discount.

            If they pretend to be religious.

            Try giving a discount only to people who pretend to be Christian. That’s not legal either.

            There have been a few lawsuits over “church bulletin” discounts, and in every case, the establishment giving the discount has to broaden it so it’s not just church bulletins.

          • jim_m

            They do the prescribed behavior, which could simply be a moment of silence.

            Perfectly legal and not an imposition unless you are an intolerant ass.

          • Brian Westley

            I disagree that it would be legal.

          • jim_m

            You have every right to be wrong. I am certain that you will continue to exercise that right.

          • JWH

            I know that age is covered under employment-discrimination statutes, but I honestly don’t know if it’s covered by the public-accommodation laws. Additionally, a number of states do, in fact, prohibit discrimination based on age.

          • Retired military

            Nor does the restaurant’s policy state to whom or what you have to pray to.

          • Brian Westley

            So what?

          • Brucehenry

            All customers are welcome, and all pay the menu price. There is not a No Atheists Allowed sign on the door, and those who do not publicly pray (including, I assume, many religious people who choose not to make a public display of prayer) are not made to feel unwelcome or denied service.

            Those who DO pray publicly are given a discount. I can’t see where this violates the CRA. But, not a lawyer, so…

          • Brian Westley

            Those who DO pray publicly are given a discount.

            Those who ARE white are given a discount. Think that would fly?

          • jim_m

            Obviously not. Yet you have yet to demonstrate how an atheist is barred from performing the actions required to access a discount except by their own intolerance and prejudice.

          • Brian Westley

            Yet you have yet to demonstrate how an atheist is barred from performing the actions required to access a discount except by their own intolerance and prejudice.

            How about only giving the discount for people who announce they’re Christian? Non-Christians can get the discount, they’d just have to lie (and possibly violate their religion). Sorry, it won’t fly.

          • jim_m

            Keep spinning loser. You know you are wrong so now you are trying to move the goalposts to saying that this is like racism or something else.

            Show me where an atheist is prohibited form accessing this discount!!

            You can’t. Your position is based exclusively in prejudice and intolerance.

          • Brian Westley

            Keep spinning loser.

            Hey, you’re the one who can’t even tell that “age” is not in a list that clearly says “race, color, religion, or national origin.”

            Just keep vomiting out insults.

          • jim_m

            I pointed out that it was a statutory issue.

            You keep moving the goalposts and you have yet to answer how it is that an atheist cannot access this discount.

          • Brian Westley

            I pointed out that it was a statutory issue.

            And, apparently, you think all restaurants that have senior discounts are breaking the law, right?

          • jim_m

            No I don’t and that was my point. Thank you for lurching into the truth.

          • Brian Westley

            No I don’t and that was my point.

            Are you saying a discount doesn’t matter when it comes to equal services? So can a restaurant charge eveyone $100 for a meal, but give $90 discounts to people based on age? How about religion?

          • jim_m

            Absolutely the discount has nothing to do with services.

            God, I hope you never realize what goes into B2B sales. People get all sorts of discounts. Step into the real world smetime.

            How about if people get a discount for saying something or doing something. Restaurants have given discounts on Halloween for peoplet hat wear costumes. Is that discrimination? I suppose if an atheist objected to Wicca you would claim so. There is no difference at all.

          • Brian Westley

            Absolutely the discount has nothing to do with services.

            Sure it does; look at court cases for church bulletins.

          • jim_m

            Restaurant services you dumbass.

          • Brian Westley

            Restaurant services you dumbass.

            Restaurants can’t give discounts just for church bulletins.

          • jim_m

            That was not at issue here and I was not arguing that point.

            So once more you shift the goalposts and fail in your aim.

            Care to tell us how an atheist cannot access this discount or are you going to continue to avoid the question?

          • Brian Westley

            Care to tell us how an atheist cannot access this discount or are you going to continue to avoid the question?

            I’ve told you many times now. Atheists can get the discount, but they have to pray. Restaurants can’t do that.

          • jim_m

            They have to bow their heads in what could just as easily be a moment of silence and no one is going to interrogate them as to what they did or what they believe.

            So once again, given those facts, how are they being forced to believe in God and how is it that they cannot access the discount?

          • Brian Westley

            They have to bow their heads

            They do? Where do you read that?

            So once again, given those facts, how are they being forced to believe in God

            They aren’t.

          • jim_m

            OK, they have to look like they are praying. That is all that is required. It explicitly says that no one is asked about what they pray or who they pray to.

            So you admit that they are not forced to believe in God and the article states clearly that they are not asked about their religious beliefs.

            There is nothing there that violates their rights. The only thing left is intolerance on their part.

          • Brian Westley

            OK, they have to look like they are praying. That is all that is required.

            Yeah. I say that’s in violation of the 1964 CRA.

          • jim_m

            And I have told you that actions are not beliefs. Actions are not banned by the CRA. Nothing about the actions required is specifically religious. If there is nothing specifically religious about the action required then how is it discrimination?

            We have said multiple times how an atheist can access this discount. if you are so hateful and intolerant that you cannot do the simple action that gets you the discount it is no one’s fault but your own. The only discrimination and prejudice on display here is from the atheists.

          • Brucehenry

            We used to have a Mustache Night. Those who could not grow a mustache were free to wear fake ones.

            Those who do not wish to pray are free to meditate for a few seconds to get the discount. I can’t see why this isn’t similar to “moments of silence” that are routinely approved by courts.

          • jim_m

            It is the same, just some people are hateful and intolerant.

          • Brucehenry

            Calm down, Jim, no need to get so angry. The language quoted in the Act seems debatable to me. I don’t agree with this Westley guy but he doesn’t seem hateful to me.

          • jim_m

            His position is very intolerant.

            He also refuses to explain why it is that atheists cannot access the discount.

            He also is now moving the goalposts because he knows he has lost the argument and doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

          • Brian Westley

            I’m not saying atheists can’t get the discount. They just have to pretend to be religious.

          • jim_m

            No. They just have to do the prescribed behavior. Did people really love Burger King when they said what they did to get their discount?

            Acting in a prescribed manner does not equal believing in the prescribed manner.

          • Brian Westley

            No. They just have to do the prescribed behavior.

            Well, you can’t give discounts based on having customers perform a religious ritual.

          • jim_m

            A moment of silence is not a religious ritual and you know it.

          • Brian Westley

            Well, she isn’t offering a discount to quiet customers.

          • jim_m

            People do not have to pray out loud so yes they are.

            Once again you are wrong.

          • Brian Westley

            How would she even know?

          • jim_m

            Not my problem. The article states that the owner does not ask what they pray or who or what they pray to.

            It’s going to be hard to get around that fact. You are still avoiding the answer to the question of how an atheist is barred from accessing this discount/

            I have asked over half a dozen times and you have yet to answer.

          • Brian Westley

            So, people must do something that isn’t noticable unless you can read minds. Good plan.

            I have asked over half a dozen times and you have yet to answer.

            I HAVE.

            Atheists CAN get the discount by performing a religious ritual. But it isn’t legal for a restaurant to offer discounts based on that.

          • Jwb10001

            If anyone can claim the discount how is it not legal? That’s like saying yes is no and no is yes because you say so.

          • Brian Westley

            If anyone can claim the discount how is it not legal?

            Anyone can claim a discount if you just have to say “I’m a Christian”. However it’s against e.g. observant Jews to do that. They can’t do it without violating their religion.

          • Jwb10001

            No that’s not the case they do not have to say they are christian, muslims and other religions also pray.

          • Brian Westley

            That’s an analogy. If you claim any discount that anyone could do is legal, so is a discount for saying “I’m a Christian”.

          • Jwb10001

            That’s not what any of us are saying maybe you should read what we say.

          • Brian Westley

            I’m pointing out that your argument doesn’t work.

          • jim_m

            No, you’re just full of crap.

            You are claiming that this is some discount for being Christian, which it isn’t.

            You are claiming that this is a discount for being white, which it isn’t.

            You are claiming that it is a discount for believing, which it isn’t.

            Too bad you can’t argue the facts. It might help your situation, but then again, if you argued the facts of this case you would lose, so you won’t.

          • Brian Westley

            You are claiming that this is some discount for being Christian, which it isn’t.

            You are claiming that this is a discount for being white, which it isn’t.

            You are claiming that it is a discount for believing, which it isn’t.

            No, I’m not. You’ve been confused by my analogies. You can’t read well.

            Too bad you can’t argue the facts.

            Too bad the restaurant can’t give this kind of discount. Either they’re going to stop, or they’ll go through a lawsuit and be told to stop.

          • jim_m

            Your analogies are BS.

            Do you have proof that an atheist bow their head in a moment of silence and was refused a discount for being an atheist?

            DO you have any proof that they could not do so and get the discount?

            Proof!! Show us proof. Without such proof what you have is intolerance and prejudice.

          • Brian Westley

            Do you have proof that an atheist bow their head in a moment of silence and was refused a discount for being an atheist?

            Hey, talk about moving the goalposts…

          • jim_m

            It is not specific to Christians and the article states that.

            So what we see now is that you have revealed that what upsets you most is Christianity and it is your hate and intolerance for Christians that drives your position rather than rational thought.

          • Brian Westley

            It is not specific to Christians and the article states that.

            You don’t understand analogies. If any sort of discount is legal if anyone can get it, then a discount for saying “I’m a Christian” is legal.

          • jim_m

            You aren’t making very good analogies. You are claiming that the discount is something that it is not.

            You’re basically lying about what it is because you cannot argue the facts of this case.

          • Brian Westley

            No, my analogies are to other kinds of discounts that are also not legal.

          • jim_m

            They were irrelevant BS that had no relation to this case.

          • jim_m

            And I responded that they are not being required to perform a religious ritual. In fact Bruce has said that as well.

            So if they are not being required to perform a religious ritual how is it that they are being denied access to the discount?

          • Brian Westley

            And I responded that they are not being required to perform a religious ritual.

            Yes, they are. I haven’t seen the owners say they give the discount to people who stand there and don’t pray. They’ve clearly said they give it to people who pray.

          • jim_m

            Nothing is asked about what they pray. They can bow their heads in silence and access the same discount. I suppose that you are so hateful that even bowing your head for a few seconds in silence is an offense to you.

            Sorry, but your intolerance is not the grounds for a discrimination lawsuit,

          • Brian Westley

            Nothing is asked about what they pray.

            What proof do you have that they don’t ask?

          • jim_m

            Read the article dumbass.

            The owner of the restaurant says that the discount was for anyone who prays before a meal, from any religious affiliation, and she neither asked nor did she care what the prayer was about or from what religious affiliation it originated.

          • Brian Westley

            That’s what she SAYS, but what proof do you have she actually doesn’t ask?

          • jim_m

            What proof do you have that she does? I give you the text from the article we are commenting on. If you have something more accurate then post a link.

          • Brian Westley

            What proof do you have that she does?

            What proof do you have she doesn’t?

          • jim_m

            I have the text from the article that says she doesn’t. If you have something that shows otherwise then you are obligated to post it.

          • jim_m

            If no one verifies that there was any religious content to the action and no one verifies that the people doing it have any religious belief or religious affiliation, then how is it that a religious action is required?

            There is no requirement for anything religious to take place.

            What there is, is a lot of atheist intolerance.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t see him moving the goalposts, either. I regret this restaurant owner is caving because I’d love to see how this case was decided in court. I bet it wouldn’t get far, but again, not a lawyer.

          • jim_m

            He has compared it to giving a discount for being white. He has compared it to giving a discount to only Christians. THAT is moving the goalposts. He is asking if those would be legal and those issues are not involved in this case.

          • Brucehenry

            THAT is called an “analogy.”

            Woops, typed too slow!

          • Brian Westley

            No, those are analogies.

          • jim_m

            Bad ones and irrelevant to this situation. It was moving the goal posts because you cannot argue the facts.

            Once again, you have yet to say how it is that an atheist cannot access this discount.

          • Brian Westley

            I think they’re valid comparisons.

          • jim_m

            You’re wrong, because in this case the prescribed action does not require a person to be something that they are not.

            In both of your bogus, goalpost moving analogies you are asking if requiring people to be something they are not is legal.

          • Jwb10001

            I think you’re wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            He did say.

          • Jwb10001

            No they are not, first of all people don’t choose to be white, people can’t come in and say they are white if they are clearly not. So those are far from teh same.

          • Brian Westley

            They really are analogies. You might not like them, but that doesn’t make them something else. They’re still analogies.

          • Brian Westley

            The owner has said that she/he might fight it. I bet they would lose.

          • Brian Westley

            The discount is given, by the owner’s own account, at whim. How do they know if someone is meditating or praying just in their head? They don’t.

          • Brucehenry

            Ummm, so?

          • Jwb10001

            So what isn’t that the option the owner has? What if I complain about the service can’t the owner give me a discount at his discretion? Or would that be illegal too?

          • Brian Westley

            What are you talking about?

            Right now, the owner says she (sometimes) gives discounts for people who pray. That’s in violation of the 1964 CRA.

          • jim_m

            Only if she refused to give the discount to an atheist who bows his head in a moment of silence.

            Got any proof of that? Otherwise you have no argument.

          • Brian Westley

            Only if she refused to give the discount to an atheist who bows his head in a moment of silence.

            Got any proof of that? Otherwise you have no argument.

            Only what the owner has said.

          • Jwb10001

            Which is what? That they will run a poloygraph on someone to see if they are an athiest trying to trick them?

          • Brian Westley

            Which is what?

            What the owner said.

          • Jwb10001

            The owner said if an athiest prayed they wouldn’t give them a discount?

          • Brian Westley

            No, she didn’t say that.

          • jim_m

            So they can access the discount then can they not.

            SO this is not about a discount it is about intolerant atheists being uncomfortable with people who support religion.

            A restaurant is not establishing a state religion. Get over it.

          • Brian Westley

            So they can access the discount then can they not.

            They can, but they have to pretend to pray.

            A restaurant is not establishing a state religion.

            No one has said that.

          • jim_m

            They do not have to pretend to pray. You can look at it that way but that is your problem and not the restaurants.

            It’s like claiming that Burger King was forcing people to really be in love with the restaurant to get a discount.

          • Brian Westley

            Hey, if you want the restaurant to challenge this in court, be my guest. I’d like to see it happen.

          • jim_m

            They will win. There is nothing that says people actually have to pray. No one is asked what the pray or who they pray to or even that they prayed.

            Based on that (and assuming that the characterization of the article above is correct) then they will win and win easily.

          • Brian Westley

            Nope, they’ll lose.

          • jim_m

            Wishful thinking doesn’t win court cases. Based on what I said tell me where any court is going to hold that religious discrimination took place.

          • Brian Westley

            Wishful thinking doesn’t win court cases.

            I agree.

          • jim_m

            You agree but you refuse to answer my question, just as you have throughout this thread, because you either know that you are wrong or lack the wit to articulate a decent argument.

          • Brian Westley

            You agree but you refuse to answer my question

            I keep answering your question, you keep ignoring it.

          • jim_m

            Nope.

            I asked the following: There is nothing that says people actually have to pray. No one is asked what the pray or who they pray to or even that they prayed. Tell me where any court is going to hold that religious discrimination took place?

            There is no discrimination taking place. There is no case. You have not established any proof that any religious component is required to get the discount. Your objection is to the word “prayer” and not to the actual activity required to get the discount.

            If there was anything else necessary to demonstrate that this is not about the discount and about atheist intolerance and hate the proof is right there.

          • Brian Westley

            I keep answering your question, you keep ignoring it.

          • jim_m

            You haven’t answered this one. Read the comment and answer or post a link to the answer in this thread.

            But it is really simple enough: If no one ever verifies that there was a religious content to this “prayer” and no one checks for any religious affiliation or belief, then is there any requirement for religious activity and can there be any religious discrimination?

            I will provide you the answer: And that is that there is no proof that pray even takes place so there cannot be religious discrimination.

          • Brian Westley

            I don’t agree. I’m fine in letting the courts decide.

          • jim_m

            In other words, I have nothing to counter that factual statement. You don’t deny those facts. You don’t want to admit that given those facts there would not be any case.

            We are back to your wishful thinking and how you want Christians to be silenced and intimidated and you hope that the courts can be used as a tool to that end without actually having to prove a case.

            I think that the most likely explanation here is that this case is just that: an act of lawfare and intimidation without any reasonable expectation of winning but rather a hope that it will be too expensive for the restaurant to fight so they will capitulate.

          • Brian Westley

            In other words, I have nothing to counter that factual statement.

            Your opinion of the legal issues are not facts. Let the courts decide.

          • jim_m

            Hey, all we have here is opinion. What you are saying is that you have no argument against what I have said.

          • Brian Westley

            Yes, I do. My argument is that you’re wrong. A requirement that entails pretending to pray falls under a religious requirement.

          • jim_m

            So rather than discuss the facts that I laid out or even respond in any way to how it is that, if religious content is neither required nor proof of any religious content or affiliation requested, this constitutes religious discrimination, you are choosing to not answer other than “in my opinion religious people are icky and therefore they should lose this case”.

            Very convincing. However, I doubt any jury anywhere will be persuaded.

          • Brian Westley

            Look, it’s clear you don’t like my answers. Too bad for you.

            And, by the way, a judge would decide since it’s a matter of law, not a jury.

          • jim_m

            It’s really rather simple: How if there is no religious content or affiliation required is religious discrimination taking place?

            You won’t answer. You duck it each and every time. It isn’t that I don’t like your answers, you don’t provide any.

          • Brian Westley

            I have answered. You don’t like my answer. Deal with it.

          • jim_m

            Yes you finally did but only inadvertently when you stated that people would be asked to “appear to pray”. You admitted that no one was being asked to participate in any religious activity or forced to confess any religious belief.

            What you object to is religion and that people actually believe in God. That is abundantly evident from looking at your Disqus history and seeing that you hate religion and religious people.

            In fact some of your diatribes make me look rather tame by comparison.

          • Brian Westley

            You admitted that no one was being asked to participate in any religious activity or forced to confess any religious belief.

            That doesn’t make pretending to pray a legal requirement for a discount.

          • jim_m

            Ummm, it doesn’t make it illegal and that is the more important point. There is no prior restraint here. You do not have to prove that your actions are legal in order to have your freedom. Only if your actions are shown to be illegal can you be prevented from acting.

            What you want is a ruling of prior restraint that requires people to prove that their actions are not religious and only then will you allow that they have the right to commit those acts.

          • Jwb10001

            No they’ll win.

          • Jwb10001

            You just lost your case in court.

          • Brian Westley

            Bring it on.

          • Jwb10001

            Dude I’m not the guy that thinks suing people for the way they run their business is a good idea. Especially over something this trivial. But if you must tilt at windmills be my guest, I wouldn’t want you for my attorney.

          • Brian Westley

            Dude I’m not the guy that thinks suing people for the way they run their business is a good idea.

            Well, I’m not a doormat. If I think a business is unlawfully discriminating, the courts are the proper way to adjudicate a resolution.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh how are you a door mat, because you have to tolerate people that think differently than you? Or because some people like to favor people that they share common interest in? I mean if you wanted to go to a gay athiests only gym I’d be perfectly fine with that, why do you have to force your values on others? Folks like you show an incredible lack of tolerance, perhaps it’s the lack of faith.

          • Brian Westley

            Oh how are you a door mat, because you have to tolerate people that think differently than you?

            No, I won’t tolerate having my rights infringed.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh your rights trump everyone elses do they? I get it now.

          • Brian Westley

            Oh your rights trump everyone elses do they? I get it now.

            No, I won’t tolerate having my rights infringed. You have the same rights.

          • Jwb10001

            Really? According to you have no right to offer a discount to someone in my resturant.

          • jim_m

            You mean this part:

            The owner of the restaurant says that the discount was for anyone who prays before a meal, from any religious affiliation, and she neither asked nor did she care what the prayer was about or from what religious affiliation it originated.

            You must have missed that n your rush to hate all things religious.

          • Jwb10001

            What is so difficult to understand I used and “anology” like you. I said if I bitch about service I might get a discount that someone else might not is that illegal too?

          • Brian Westley

            No, that’s not illegal. Happy?

          • Jwb10001

            Well why not, why can they just offer some people discounts and not others?

          • Brian Westley

            Well why not, why can they just offer some people discounts and not others?

            Because offering a discount or not, depending on service complaints, is not against the law.

          • Jwb10001

            In your opinion, in my opinion neither is offering a discount to someone that prays, or is a member of the military or is over 65 or has a birthday, or whatever. Why does the business owner have zero rights here?

          • warnertoddhuston

            You invalidate your own point with… “No, what this amounts to is a public accommodation not giving patrons who don’t pray full and equal treatment of services.”

            There is NO accusation that people who don’t pray don’t get “full and equal treatment of services.”

            Offering a discount for ANYTHING does not equate to getting less service. Otherwise coupons would be illegal.

          • Brian Westley

            Offering a discount for ANYTHING does not equate to getting less service.

            It equals to not getting EQUAL service. Do you think a restaurant that had a 10-cent cover charge for whites, and a $100 cover charge for everyone else would not be in violation of the 1964 civil rights act?

          • Jwb10001

            Do you think everyone pays the same price for a car? If you pay more for a car than I do are your civil rights being vilolated?

          • Brian Westley

            Do you think car dealerships can give discounts to customers that pray?

          • Jwb10001

            Sure if they want to why not? They seem to have no other rational.

          • jim_m

            If they do so according to the same rules as this restaurant, then yes.

          • Brian Westley

            If they do so according to the same rules as this restaurant, then yes.

            I disagree.

          • jim_m

            Like I said, you are an intolerant jerk.

          • Brian Westley

            Like I said, you’re still an asshole.

          • jim_m

            At least I have the honesty to own it.

          • Brian Westley

            Oh, I’m being honest too. I really think you are an asshole.

          • jim_m

            But you deny you bigotry and intolerance. You think that you are better than others and think that you should have special protections and rights over other people.

          • Brian Westley

            Nope, just equal rights.

          • jim_m

            Answer the question I posted below on how it is that not having to have any religious component to the action or have any religious affiliation comprise an act of religious discrimination in this case?

            Just because you are offended doesn’t mean that your rights have been violated. Get over it, grow a spine and learn to tolerate people that are different from you.

          • Brian Westley

            Answer the question I posted below on how it is that not having to have any religious component to the action or have any religious affiliation comprise an act of religious discrimination in this case?

            I have. A requirement to pretend to pray falls under religious discrimination.

            Just because you are offended doesn’t mean that your rights have been violated.

            That’s never been my argument.

          • Jwb10001

            There is no requirement to do anything first off you don’t even have to go to the resturant but of course that would never do you’d have to go there to assert your “rights” to over rule everyone elses rights.

          • Brian Westley

            Let’s see what a court of law says, then.

          • jim_m

            If there is no religious content required and no religious affiliation required how is it prayer and not simply an action like prayer? say like a moment of silence? If moments of silence are legal then how is this not legal?

          • Brian Westley

            If there is no religious content required and no religious affiliation required how is it prayer and not simply an action like prayer?

            I just said it’s pretend praying.

          • jim_m

            Then it cannot be discrimination since nothing religious is required.

          • Brian Westley

            Let’s see what the courts say.

          • Jwb10001

            Like what? Like not having to tolerate religous people?

          • Brian Westley

            No, like not giving discounts for praying in a restaurant.

          • Jwb10001

            You don’t have to pray and you don’t have to go to the restuarnt, you’re not “required” participate in any way shape or form. But like I said that’s not good enough you have to take the resturant owners rights away.

          • jim_m

            If no one verifies that a religious message was prayed or that the people partaking in the activity have any religious beliefs or affiliation does a prayer have to take place to get the discount? Is there any proof that any prayer ever takes place to begin with?

          • Retired military

            Everyone has equal access to the discount. They just have to pray. No specific religion is invoked by the restaurant.

          • Brian Westley

            Everyone has equal access to the discount. They just have to pray.

            You can’t have a discount based on who does or doesn’t pray.

          • jim_m

            Correction, they have to do something that looks like praying. They do not have to pray since there is no interrogation about what they are doing.

          • Brian Westley

            Still not legal.

          • jim_m

            There is no requirement of religious content or religious affiliation.

            There is therefore no religious discrimination.

            Next bullshit complaint?

          • Jwb10001

            What law school did you go to? I’m curious I want to make sure my kids avoid going there.

          • Brian Westley

            I never said I went to law school. What law school did you go to?

          • Jwb10001

            You’re the guy spewing all this and that is illegal not me.

          • Brian Westley

            You’re spewing that all this and that is legal; same difference.

          • Jwb10001

            Show me the quotes where I said it was legal, you’re so quick with my other quotes. I don’t recall making that claim. I think you’re position is wrong that more often than not has nothing to do with legal. But have at it find the quote it will be another stunning victory for you.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Atheism is not a religion per the Atheists themselves. Ergo they cannot be discriminted against as a “religion.”

      • jim_m

        Wrong again pal. If Burger King can advertise “Say ‘I love this place and get $0.50 off’” then any restaurant can say “pray to any god you want and we will give you a discount”. Atheists can pray to the god of the marketplace or the commune for all I care and it appears that the restaurant’s policy is the same. If Burger King wasn’t forcing speech on its patrons then this isn’t forcing religion.

        What it amounts to is atheists demanding an exemption from a policy that requires them to do something they feel is meaningless. Rather than play along they demand to get what those who play get without having to participate.

        What you assholes demand is special rights. Too bad. Play the game and get your discount. If you don’t want to play then STFU.

        • Brian Westley

          Wrong again pal. If Burger King can advertise “Say ‘I love this place and get $0.50 off’” then any restaurant can say “pray to any god you want and we will give you a discount”.

          I doubt that. I’ve read that the restaurant might try to keep giving this discount, so it could be that the courts decide.

          What it amounts to is atheists demanding an exemption from a policy that requires them to do something they feel is meaningless.

          No, what this amounts to is a public accommodation not giving patrons who don’t pray full and equal treatment of services.

          What you assholes demand is special rights. Too bad. Play the game and get your discount. If you don’t want to play then STFU.

          Sorry, atheists aren’t going to shut up, and we file lawsuits if we think our rights have been infringed. You can be a doormat if you like.

          • jim_m

            So rather than doing what everyone else does you demand special rights as I claimed because you are intolerant assholes that think you are better than everyone else. Don’t tell me I’m wrong. I used to be an atheist and that was how I was back then.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s how you are NOW dude.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t say I changed. ;)

          • Brucehenry

            I hope you never do, man, I love ya just the way you are.

          • jim_m

            Liar. But I understand.

          • Brian Westley

            You’re still an asshole, jim_m

          • jim_m

            Better than the intolerant jerk that you are.

            I make no claims to being perfect.

          • Brian Westley

            Better than the intolerant jerk that you are.

            Using the legal system to review actions by public accommodations is not being a jerk in my view. Like I said, you can be a doormat if you like.

          • jim_m

            Or you could access the discount like anyone else. But what you are defending is that people who refuse to do what the discount requires should get i t anyway if they belong to a specific class.

            You don’t ask for equal rights, you ask for special rights and you also ask for suppression of the rights of others.

          • Brian Westley

            Or you could access the discount like anyone else.

            By pretending to pray.

          • jim_m

            By performing an action that could variously be interpreted as either praying or having a moment of silence. You have failed to establish that prayer is actually necessary to getting the discount.

          • Jwb10001

            Or if he’s so offended he could just stay away, that’s not good enough he has to ruin it for everyone or he’s just not happy, I mean his rights are being violated. It’s incredible to me the rights that people can dream up and get outraged about.

          • jim_m

            Exactly. It is more about intolerance and this idiotic belief that people should have the right to not be offended.

          • Brian Westley

            Offense isn’t the issue.

          • jim_m

            Really? SO if no religious content or affiliation is required then how is this religious discrimination? and not merely offense taking?

            Asked and not answered other than your pathetic “I will wait for the court to decide”. Pretty weak.

          • Brian Westley

            Nobody has said this is based on offense. Getting a discount or not depending on whether a patron appears to pray is what’s at stake.

          • jim_m

            Exactly!!! Finally an admission “appears to pray”, not actually praying, not actually believing in God or having any religious belief, not being a member of any religion.

            What you object to is an act that might be interpreted in a way that you think is icky and which would offend you.

            You don’t have a right to not be offended or exposed to icky things.

          • Brian Westley

            Finally an admission “appears to pray”,

            Finally? The next comment is me from an hour ago saying “By pretending to pray”.

          • jim_m

            So by your admission that no religious activity is required you admit that there is no religious discrimination and no violation of anyone’s rights.

            What you object to is religion. What you object to is the offense that you take toward religion and the idea that you would be asked to do anything that could in any way be interpreted as religious because you hate religion like Nathan Bedford Forest hated blacks.

            Now there is finally an analogy that is accurate.

          • Brian Westley

            So by your admission that no religious activity is required you admit that there is no religious discrimination

            No, I consider “pretending to pray” to be religious discrimination.

          • jim_m

            And because it does not require religious content or religious affiliation it cannot be construed as requiring any religion on the part of the customer. Therefore no discrimination is taking place.

            In order for an atheist to be discriminated against you have to require a religious element. There is none required here so therefore there is no discrimination.

          • Brian Westley

            Yeah, well, you might expect this answer, but I don’t agree with your analysis.

          • jim_m

            OK. Then explain where there is a religious content required. Explain so in the contest of the article above or by providing additional links to this issue that support your position. Certainly, if there are other stories on the internet that provide additional detail we are all interested in getting the full facts.

            Even I would admit that if they are requiring religious content or checking on religious affiliation that they could be argued to be in the wrong.

            Yet you won’t do that. You won’t go beyond your claim that even pretending something becomes a violation of your rights. You claim that even a moment of silence is a violation of your rights because someone else might mistake you for praying. Sorry, but the reactions of other people to what you do are not relevant.

            Seriously, if you would bother to address the issues raised here there could be a good discussion. But you don’t want to bother with that. You are too busy being offended by religion. I suspect also that you see the reasonableness of our position and realize that the case for discrimination is far from a slam dunk and so you don’t want to invest in a losing argument. We understand.

          • Jwb10001

            Sure it is you’re offended by those terrible religous people and they way they’ve favored their own over you.

          • Brian Westley

            Nope.

          • Jwb10001

            Then you have no issue and are just being a jack ass

          • Brian Westley

            Hey, riding in the back of the bus was fine too, right? The back gets to the destination the same time as the first, so there’s no reason to protest.

            Please note the above is an analogy.

          • Jwb10001

            AND HERE’S THE RACE CARD! Sure sign that you’ve run out of stupid arguments. To your credit it’s taken a while to get around to call me a racist but you’ve finally got there. Congratuations you just lost the argument.

          • Brian Westley

            You failed to notice the analogy again.

          • Jwb10001

            Blah blah blah, You’ve got nothing more to say if you’re so stupid as to equate this with Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement. Jumped the shark and prematurely played the race card. You’re done!

          • jim_m

            The only purpose for throwing out the racism thing was to by analogy accuse people who disagree with you of being racists.

            That was the only purpose.

          • Brian Westley

            No, it was to show you how ridiculous his argument was.

          • Jwb10001

            My argument? Man that’s funny here’s a guy that thinks not getting a prayer discount is like being brought over in slave ships sold to other humans, forced to work for nothing, have to fight for your very existence. And my argument is ridculous. You need to look that word up I don’t thing it means what you think it does.

          • Brian Westley

            Man that’s funny here’s a guy that thinks not getting a prayer discount is like being brought over in slave ships sold to other humans

            No, but that’s because you don’t understand analogies.

          • Jwb10001

            Bull Shit you don’t understand proportion. When you start comparing your idiotic cursade to the perils of slavery you show yourself to lack any clear awareness of how petty your being.

          • Brian Westley

            When you start comparing your idiotic cursade to the perils of slavery

            When did I do that? Oh, I didn’t.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh did you not make the post about sitting on the back of the bus or are you not aware that was a part of the civil rights movement?

          • Brian Westley

            Oh did you not make the post about sitting on the back of the bus or are you not aware that was a part of the civil rights movement?

            When did I compare it to slavery? Oh, I didn’t.

          • jim_m

            Deja vu

            Yes, You did indeed.

          • Brian Westley

            Where? Quote me where I first mentioned slavery.

          • jim_m

            I happen to agree that your comment about the bus was a reference to Civil Rights and therefore a reference to the situation of black Americans.

          • Jwb10001

            A distinction with out a difference. So what, as he would say, how on earth do you pry the civil rights movement away from the slavery that required it?

          • jim_m

            Apparently, he is the only one who gets to interpret what things mean. A moment of silence without any religious content becomes a prayer that violates the conscience of atheists (do atheists have a conscience? Not in my experience), but repeated comparisons of this to racial discrimination have nothing to do with the origins of racial inequality in America.

          • Jwb10001

            I expect he thinks it’s appropriate to comapre this stupidity to the civil rights movement but not slavery. Like that’s really any different. This is like anything else when it becomes this petty the real violations of rights are marginalized.

          • jim_m

            I think that his real problem is that he refused to argue the facts because his position was not supported by the facts. Instead he tried to make all sorts of idiotic analogies that had nothing to do with his position but that he knew people would not want to argue about.

          • Jwb10001

            He came here convinced he was right and was sure his logic was sound and he understood the facts. He did not expect others to have a different point of view and to be vigorous in defense of those positions. He escalated the tone, threw the race card and ended up dancing on the head of a pin over a tiny difference. He expected us to be the doormats he refused to be and found out we aren’t. I’m not at all religous I have no dog in this fight but I am very tired of some people dictating what rights we do and don’t have.

          • jim_m

            I admit I was a bit rude at first but I backed off (at Bruce’s suggestion even!) and focused on the issues at hand. He had nothing to offer other than religion is icky and he is afraid of anything that he might do which could be misinterpreted as religious.

            Why do I suspect that the whole way this came to light was that the owner gave an atheist a discount mistakenly and they got offended?

          • jim_m

            I grew up atheist and then became a Christian. I see the flaws on both sides. I object to atheists who get so thinned skinned that the mere suggestion that something religious is going on means that their rights are being violated. Most atheists aren’t assholes, but all the ones you hear about are because this is why you hear about them.

          • Jwb10001

            Are you being intentionally dense? Do you not have even a basic understanding the struggles of African Americans?

          • Brian Westley

            Look, you said I was “comparing your idiotic cursade to the perils of slavery”. I hadn’t mentioned slavery.

          • Jwb10001

            Look you compared your idiotic cursade to the Civil Rights movement, why do you suppose African Americans were in need of a civil rights movement. In addition there was more to my comment than that but thanks for cherry picking part of line to make a dumb ass argrment about a non point just to try to save your ass from looking stupid. You have come here with all this self rigthous indignation about how important it is that athiest get some shcolcky discount you go so far as to comapre this struggle to Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement. You’ve been called on that lunacy, if you can not connect the dots from slavery to the civil rights movement you should just stop commenting now.

          • Brian Westley

            you compared your idiotic cursade to the Civil Rights movement

            So what?

            You said I was “comparing your idiotic cursade to the perils of slavery”.

            I didn’t.

          • Jwb10001

            How did Rosa Parks end up where she was on that day that she stood up to true peril and sat in the front of the bus? Did she get there because the vast majority of her people were brought here as slaves? Did the struggle that lead to the civil rights movement begin when white people brought African Americans to our country and sold them as slaves? If you want to dance on the head of that pin to try to win some debating point be my guest. If you think it sounds better to compare your idiotic crusade to the civil rights movement fine, it still way over the top to even try to compare the 2 but you have at it. It makes you look petty and small minded.

          • jim_m

            Yes you did.

          • Jwb10001

            He’s either stupid and doesn’t know that Rosa Parks was a part of the civil rights movement or he’s just lying hoping we all forgot about that sitting in the back of the buss stuff he posted. Either way he’s blown it by resorting to the race card and trying to pull the Godwin bull shit. I’ve concluded he’s not so bright.

          • jim_m

            I’d like to choose both even though they are mutually exclusive.

          • Brian Westley

            So, you can’t tell the difference between slavery versus the civil rights movement and the Alabama bus boycott?

          • Jwb10001

            So you can not connect the dots between slavery and the civil rights movement?

          • Brian Westley

            So you can not connect the dots between slavery and the civil rights movement?

            You said I was “comparing your idiotic cursade to the perils of slavery”.

            I didn’t.

          • Jwb10001

            Quit partically quoting me if you insist on quoting me at all. As I’ve said if that’s your argument fine dance on the head of that pin, if you think it makes you look smart well…..

          • jim_m

            Here’s an analogy for you: You hate religion like Nathan Bedford Forest hated Blacks. It is easy to see from everything you write. It is nearly the only thing that compels you to comment anywhere. You are driven by anti-religious hate.

          • Jwb10001

            He hates religion like Hitler hated religion, that’s what he would call an analogy.

          • Brian Westley

            Godwin’s law, I win.

          • Jwb10001

            Dude you just don’t get analogies. Now I’m suspecting you aren’t very bright, did you not understand the point of the comment? Clearly not.

          • jim_m

            Not around here pal. But if you want to run away we will understand.

          • Brian Westley

            There’s no point to hang around here.

          • jim_m

            Certainly not, if you are not going to engage in the discussion but all you have is this idiotic position that mentioning religion is so offensive that it automatically violates the rights of atheists and the constitution.

            But since religion doesn’t come up here all that often you would probably be rather bored seeing as that is the only thing that you care to opine on.

          • Brian Westley

            this idiotic position that mentioning religion is so offensive that it automatically violates the rights of atheists and the constitution.

            I’ve never said that. Again, you show you can’t read.

          • jim_m

            You didn’t have to say it. It is your only argument though. You won’t argue about the facts as presented above. you are assuming all sorts of things that are not relevant. I can read. So can everyone else.

          • Brian Westley

            You didn’t have to say it.

            OK, you admit you lied about what I said.

          • jim_m

            I said that it was in there.

            You have lied repeatedly about answering my questions, so I wouldn’t complain too much. Besides, I thought you said that you were leaving.

          • Jwb10001

            Are you just figuring out that you’re not getting anywhere with us? Why would you expect to? Did you think we were doormats?

          • jim_m

            But he has devastating analogies!!! His problem is that he picked a fight with people about a legal case that involved religion and he is more used to arguing criticizing religion. He doesn’t expect to have to explain himself.

          • Brian Westley

            I’m sure I can’t convince you otherwise. I’ll live.

          • jim_m

            I’ve looked at your Disqus history. All the proof necessary for my claim is contained therein.

    • JWH

      There actually have been threats at some businesses that do this.

    • Brett Buck

      And I also don’t think the nutcase group has a legal leg to stand on. But, typically, they can threaten something like this and the victims have no recourse, since they will be put out of business fighting it. In that way, it’s classic liberal tactics, use every means to get their way, regardless of the morality or legitimacy.

      • Brucehenry

        Actually I have been persuaded by reading the relevant text of the CRA and the rest of this thread that it actually IS illegal to offer this discount.

  • http://nomayo.mu.nu Stephen_Macklin

    There’s nothing I dislike more than God Fearing Atheists.

  • Retired military

    Brian when you have Jim and Bruce both against you then you must be incorrect. That is a sanctified rule on Wizbang.

  • Brian Westley

    Well, since both jim_m and Jwb10001 have admitted they lie about things I’ve said, there’s no point in continuing.

    For the record, I hope this goes to court.

    • jim_m

      BS. We have interpreted your analogy. I thought you were all about the analogy? Don’t be fooled into thinking that you made any point here.

      You claim that this was religious discrimination yet you admit to the fact that there is no religious content required, nor is there any religious affiliation required to access the discount.

      You are left with the assertion that you think religion is icky, and that doing something that might be interpreted by some as religious offends you and therefore your rights are violated because even though you don’t have to believe or participate in any religious activity you are offended and therefore your rights are violated.

      You have offered no argument against these facts. But you have made various outrageous analogies comparing this case to the Civil Rights fight, to racial discrimination and other idiotic comparisons. You have tried to move the goalposts repeatedly saying that because other discrimination is bad that this must therefore be bad even though you cannot prove that discrimination is taking place here.

      In all, your arguments are weak, you lack the will to defend your position in any articulate fashion and instead of honing your argument you get more and more vague. The clear sign that you are losing is that you get more vague and your opponents get more specific about the case.

      If you cannot argue the facts then you are correct: There is no point in your remaining.

      For the record: if it goes to court the restaurant wins. No religious content required, no verification of religious message or affiliation attempted. No religion = no religious discrimination. All of which means that no jury will find for the plaintiff.

    • Jwb10001

      Whatever you can’t defend your opinion so you call other people liars. You come here inisist your opinions are facts, the law is clear and you’re a cursader on the order of Rosa Parks then when you don’t get anywhere with that you come back and pull a little name calling. It will never go to court because the poor resturant owner isn’t stupid, why spend his hard earned money fighting bullies. If I were him I would discontinue the discount put big signs telling everyone why and encourgage them to pray anyway as it drives the intolerant assholes nuts and there’s nothing they can do about it.

  • jim_m

    If I were the owner I would change the receipt to read something like “owner’s discretionary discount” and then force the jerks to prove what the discount is for. They cannot force her to testify against herself. She doesn’t have to allow them to record activity in the restaurant to make their case.

    Since obviously, it is the wording that offends the intolerant atheists, simply remove the wording and be done with it. And the screw them over by doing it all the same but under a different guise. Why should they care if she does? They have no moral standards that they can defend anyway.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    Probably just a bunch of typically tolerant liberals. They probably sue bars that have “ladies’ nights”, too. Wonder if they sue people online who do special things for you if you click “Like”?

  • yetanotherjohn

    I know a couple of places in Texas that give a free ice cream cone or a discount if you bring in a church bulletin. I suppose that would also violate the civil rights act.

  • Par4Course

    People who don’t pray pay 15% more. That is religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. If it were Muslims who brought out their prayer rugs, knelt, faced Mecca and prayed who got the discount, then folks on this site perhaps would understand. So long as they agree with the prayers and the discount, many will be in denial about the illegality of the owners’ actions. My own preference would be to repeal the Civil Right Act and let owners do what they want but that’s not likely to happen soon.

  • JWH

    I see a couple angles here.

    First, (IIRC), religion is a “protected class” in discrimination law, along with race, national origin, sex, and at least a couple other categories I can’t remember off the top of my head. If the restaurant is issuing a 15 percent discount to people who pray, it is, in fact, discriminating on the basis of religion. Under federal law, places that constitute public accommodations (i.e., hotels and restaurants) aren’t allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, etc. Some states have laws (typically under the rubric of “human rights”) that outlaw this kind of discrimination as well.

    Second … who the fuck cares? And as an atheist, I mean that. If this restaurant turned away atheists and agnostics, I would have a huge problem with that. But a 15 percent discount on the curly fries and some pie does not rise to the same level as “Don’t sit at this lunch counter” or “I’m sorry, we won’t let you into the hotel.” It’s minor, a tiny issue, and I don’t think FFRF is doing itself any favor by going after small crap like this.

    • Par4Course

      You’re right about both issues – the illegality of the discount to those who pray and the fact that FFRF is acting against its members’ own self-interest in making a fighting issue out of this minor infraction. Organized atheists usually do themselves no good by using the courts to push their views on the 90+% of Americans who profess theism.

      • Brucehenry

        From the time I went to bed last night until now, when this thread went from 53 comments to 253 comments and I re-read it, yours and JWH’s comments are the first interesting ones posted. Brian’s, Jims, and jwb’s are all like the Monty Python argument sketch.

        • JWH

          Thanks. There actually are some pretty nasty cases of discrimination and harassment based on religion out there, including a man denied a job at a lighting company because he was irreligious, and an atheist woman who continually harassed a religious co-worker in a government office. That’s the real discrimination. Not this penny-ante crap.

        • Jwb10001

          But you have nothing to say about the stupid atheist that thinks he’s standing up the man just like Rosa Parks……

          • Brucehenry

            He is right that you don’t understand analogies and that Jim can’t fucking read, never has been able to.

            He also seems to be right that this discount is illegal under the CRA. It may be that the Act’s writers didn’t intend it so, but it looks to me like that’s the way the law reads.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            The projection remains strong with our brucehemorrhoid…

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            The projection remains strong with our brucehomorrhoid…

      • Brucehenry

        After reading the all-night argument and then yours and JWH’s comments, and ruminating a little, I see that you, Brian, and JWH are correct, it’s illegal.

        And all you have to do to see WHY it’s illegal is to imagine a scenario in which a restaurant gives a discount to everyone who DOESN’T pray but charges 15% more to those who do.

        • jim_m

          Charging some people more than the published cost would be discriminatory. But that is not a fair analogy because exceeding the published price for reasons apart from those connected with service (such as charging a set tip rate for large parties) would be wrong regardless.

          And again we get back to what is the action being requested. Is there any necessity that it involve religion? Other than the ownership referring to it as prayer, is anything religious necessary to get the discount? If no then there is nothing wrong other than an intolerant atheist (But i repeat myself) is offended by the words used.

          • Brucehenry

            If everyone who didn’t pray was given a discount and everyone who did pray didn’t get the discount the effect is the same. Those who didn’t pray would pay less than practicing believers, so that would be discrimination. It works the same in reverse.

            The fact that the restaurant IS calling it a “public prayer discount” is proof that they want you to perform a religious ritual in order to get a discount. A “prayer” is, by definition, a religious ritual.

          • jim_m

            So as I suggested the complaint is on what the discount is called and not for what the discount asks the patrons to do. That would be the definition of intolerance.

            If everyone is given the same discount for performing the same action regardless of whether or not there is any religious content then there is no discrimination since everyone can access the discount.

            It is like my example of the Burger King promotion where customers were asked to say, “I love this place” to get a discount. No one was actually required to demonstrate that they loved Burger King, all they had to do was the required action. This could be no different.

            Prayer usually is understood as a religious ritual, but then by the same token professing one’s love bespeaks an emotional attachment. In both cases neither religion nor emotionality are being required.

            It really comes down to the fact that people are intolerant and offended by Christians talking about religion. If this were a Lebanese restaurant and they were giving a discount to promote muslim prayer this bigoted atheist would have kept his mouth shut and we all know it.

          • Brucehenry

            Your obliviousness to the obvious and your acrobatic leaps of logic, not to mention your claims to clairvoyance as to what this Brian guy would do “and we all know it” — no, we don’t — are par for the course.

            There IS a religious component in a discount that is called by the party offering it a “public prayer discount.” You can say there isn’t till the cows come home but it’s obvious there is. And according to the language of the CRA that seems to be illegal.

            I myself see a difference between this discount and a church bulletin discount. In a bulletin discount, one is simply reaching out to a large number of potential customers who happen to regularly gather nearby. In this case, the restaurant owner is asking folks to either perform a religious ritual or pretend to perform one, and I think the “moment of silence” gambit in this case would be seen by a court to be a smokescreen.

            If there is anything that is a likely bet about your Lebanese restaurant analogy, it’s that Warner and you would be superduper butthurt if that joint offered discounts to publicly praying patrons, ESPECIALLY if they were hauling out prayer rugs facing Mecca.

          • jim_m

            SO the article states that the owner ” neither asked nor did she care what the prayer was about or from what religious affiliation it originated.” By that it would be reasonable to construe that there is no requirement that ANY religious content is required.

            It gets down to the fact that the left hates religion and, push come to shove, will always takes sides against religion.

            Also, I was not referring to Brian, but the complainant in Warner’s article, although I suspect that the little bigot would feel the same in that case as well. Lefty bravery ends when they confront someone who they think will slit their throat. (and yes I do believe that lefty prejudice leads them to think that all muslims would slit their throats so they must pander to them in order to ensure that the crocodile eats them last)

          • Brucehenry

            I think what it “gets down to” is that the CRA hates discrimination, and will always come down on the side of the rights of the minority being protected, notwithstanding your persecution complex.

            Again with obliviousness to the obvious. She may not care from which religious affiliation it originated, but she wants it to come from SOME religious tradition. Non-believers don’t pray publicly (obviously) but, I am given to understand, NEITHER DO MANY RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS, at least not routinely before meals are taken. These people, if there are any in this market, are being denied the same pricing as those who DO publicly pray.

            EDIT: When I was coming up, we always said the blessing before meals at home, but never at a restaurant — we didn’t want to seem like oh-so-pious Pharisees, you see.

            The rest of your diatribe about bigotry, intolerance, etc are standard Jim-style boilerplate. I don’t know why you must demonize everyone who disagrees with you. Is there no position other than your own that you’ll concede can be arrived at sincerely?

          • jim_m

            What she wants does not enter into it. What she is paying for does. What you want to do is to punish motives whereas the Civil Rights Act can only punish actions.

            That is the difference between left and right. The left wants to force people to think a certain way through the force of law. The Right wants people to act in a certain way but is content to let them think what they will. That is why I call you a fascist Bruce. You side with those who think that the law can be used to enforce thought.

          • Brucehenry

            Her action, in this case, is to reward customers who perform a religious ritual with pricing that she denies to customers who do not perform a religious ritual — or pretend to. That is illegal under the CRA. Take your hairsplittin’ up with the long-dead authors of the Act.

          • jim_m

            Please be clear: How is it demanding a religious ritual if she does not enforce a requirement for any religious content?

            The activity is not illegal if she does not require any religious content.

            What you and Brian last night object to is that it can be perceived as religious and therefore you are offended. You are offended that someone might mistake your actions as religious when they are not. That is called intolerance. You are prejudiced.

          • Brucehenry

            When you call the discount a “public prayer discount” on the receipt the religious content can be inferred, you ridiculous dumbass.

          • jim_m

            Sigh.

            Can you please address whether or not religious activity is required to get the discount?

            Q: Does the article tell us that ANY religious content is required or any religious affiliation demanded?

            A: No. There are no such demands.

            Q: Does the Civil Rights Act proscribe speech or a person’s actions?

            A: It only proscribes actions because speech is a Constitutional right that cannot be infringed.

            Q: Would it be illegal if she required a religious component and called it by a non-religious name (a “Special Activity Discount”)?

            A: YES!!

            So what you object to is the inferred religious component. What you object to is your own prejudice being unveiled for everyone else to see.

            Discrimination laws do not deal with maters of speech. They deal with matters of actions. Stop being an ass and focus on the actions involved.

          • Brucehenry

            You are trying to cloud the issue. This lady is offering a reduced pricing level to customers who perform a religious ritual and denying that same pricing level to those who do not. There is nothing “inferred” about it.

            Those who do not perform a religious ritual (or pretend to) are being denied the “FULL AND EQUAL enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, PRIVILEGES, AND ADVANTAGES” of this place of public accommodation.

            It’s right there in the text.

            She calls this a “public prayer discount” in order to, I assume, attract a certain clientele. This probably would not be effective if she called it something else. It may be unfortunate, but there it is — the discount is illegal.

          • jim_m

            Wait… I am clouding the issue by trying to focus on what the law actually constrains and what it does not.

            Only someone losing the argument would make such a statement.

            You refuse to answer my questions about what is actually being asked. I can only assume that is because you have nothing to say against my points.

          • Brucehenry

            No it is because they are irrelevant. The relevant part is this: Customers who DO NOT perform a religious ritual are being denied a “privilege or advantage” in this place of public accommodation that those who DO perform a religious ritual are being granted. This is in violation of the CRA, at least arguably. Maybe I’m wrong but I bet I’m not.

            Angels dancing on pinheads about constrained actions and moments of silence are irrelevant to this lady’s actions, which are to deny to some people a privilege granted to others on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.

          • jim_m

            What the patrons are asked to do to obtain a discount IS the only part that is relevant.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes they are asked to perform a religious ritual, or pretend to. Those who do are given better pricing than those who don’t. Arguably illegal under the CRA.

          • jim_m

            And my point is that they are not necessarily asked to do anything of the sort since there is no demand for or verification of, religious content or affiliation.

          • Brucehenry

            Well it’s too bad then that this lady caved, I guess we’ll not know if this was illegal or not. There’ll be other cases.

          • jim_m

            It would be easy to continue this discount with a minor change in the name of the discount. I hope she does just that.

          • Brucehenry

            I doubt it will have much drawing power if she calls it something else.

          • jim_m

            There was no claim in the article that it had any drawing power or that it was intended to do so. The owner’s own statement was that she wanted to promote the activity in her restaurant not that she wanted to attract specific clientele.

          • Brucehenry

            Well in that case good luck to her. Seems a funny way to run a business to me but it belongs to her and if she runs it without breaking the law I got no beef with her.

    • jim_m

      But is it religious discrimination if the restaurant does not require any actual religious content, does not ask about religious affiliation and makes no effort to verify that anything took place other than a moment of silence?

      I think that is the issue. Just because someone is offended that it is called prayer doesn’t mean that it is some unconstitutional breach of the 2nd amendment or of the Civil Rights Act. If an invocation can be made in Congress then you can give someone a discount for doing it at their meal.

      I think people are hung up on the language used and not paying attention to the action that is being required to get the discount. Put aside the word “pray” and look at what is being asked and what is being done to verify the action. It is really hard to say that religion is being mandated here.

      • Brucehenry

        You can’t put aside the word “pray” when you are considering whether a “prayer discount” is legal, silly.

        I do agree with JWH that it is a silly thing to make an issue of, and in a city the size of Winston-Salem, NC, one who is put off by this discount offer have many other options. Just as one may skip a trip to Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby if one feels strongly about their religious bs.

        But it is NOT hard to see where a violation — at least a technical violation — of the CRA is occurring here. Legally, it seems to me, it’s cut and dried, despite my initial comments on this thread. I have been persuaded that I was mistaken.

        • jim_m

          So my point is that if she calls it something different but keeps the same rules, is it discrimination?

          If the answer is yes, then I am correct that you’re just being an anti-religious bigot and are hung up on the name of the discount.

          If the answer is no then you are an anti-religious bigot because even though everyone has access to the discount because some people might be praying it is somehow illegal.

          • Brucehenry

            Typical Jim accusatory butthurt paranoid nonsense. Make sense and stop being a buffoon.

            What could she possibly call a discount for praying other than a prayer discount? Why would it not be illegal to give a discount for praying but not to give one for NOT praying? Why can’t you see that different pricing levels depending on whether or not one prays — or pretends to pray — is discriminatory?

            You can’t even see that someone may see this as discrimination without being, in your laughable hyperbolic nutjob phrase, an “anti-religious bigot.” You can’t admit that someone may come to a conclusion other than the one you have come to sincerely and with logic.

            You are the anti-American bigot here, refusing to acknowledge any opinion other than your own as having any merit.

          • jim_m

            She could call it a moment of silence discount. That would not be illegal and would be accessible to everyone.

            Your argument has devolved into an argument that all discounts are illegal. You are going to the extreme of making all discounts illegal in order to suppress religion. Nice.

            I agree that someone can come to the assumption that this is discriminatory based on the name and without looking into what is required. I also believe that because of the name the only requirement could be that you wear blue jeans and you would still object to it.

            Like Brian last night, you are refusing to even discuss what is actually being asked. You are focused on the name only. You are offended because it says “prayer”. That alone is your objection. If it were named any other name and only required people to bow their heads in a moment of silence you would not object.

            It’s the religious name that bothers you and that is why I say you are prejudiced. You wouldn’t give a damn about being asked to do the actions otherwise.

          • Brucehenry

            There is no offense here. (I can’t speak for Brian.) I’m just seeing the text of the relevant section, which states that no privileges or benefits offered by a place of public accommodation may be denied on account of religion.

            You’re talking to someone here who has, in his career, offered church bulletin discounts and even church rebate programs in an effort to drum up repeat business. I’m sure this lady meant no offense to anyone, as she says, but the fact is she is in violation of the CRA (as perhaps was I) when she offers a discount to those who perform a religious ritual and denies discounted pricing to those who do not.

          • jim_m

            See my comment below.

            Focus on the actions, not the words. Tell me that the actions required (which do not require and religious component or affiliation) are in any way discriminatory.

            I don’t believe that you violated the law with your discount either. Religious ceremonies are open to the public and anyone could get a program/bulletin and not even have to stay for the whole thing. And as you pointed out it is done to attract a local group. You could easily do this for any sizable local group where someone could present some sort of documentation that they were there.

          • Brucehenry

            Right, and I don’t think I did either, but maybe….

            Even if I (and Brian) are wrong about the law, it doesn’t make either one of us “anti-religious bigots,” just regular Americans who have viewpoint that differs from yours. I don’t get why you get so fucking butthurt about every argument. Can’t you EVER be civil?

          • jim_m

            Perhaps not for you, but if you browse through Brian’s Disqus profile you will see that he seeks out this sole issue and he especially likes to refer to Catholics as child molesters. He is a bigot.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said I can’t speak for Brian. I operated family restaurants here in the Bible Belt for decades, I wouldn’t have stayed in business very long being “an anti-religious bigot.”

      • JWH

        Why would the prayer discount be considered discrimination? Consider the following scenario involving race:

        In a city with a history of racial discrimination, a restaurant owner has always refused to serve African-Americans in his business. The city council passes a law that prohibits restaurants from discriminating against customers based on race.

        The restaurant owner thinks about this, then he realizes that he can minimize African-American customers in his business. Instead of barring African-Americans, he refuses to serve individuals who are students or alumni of a city school that a) was the “black students’ school” during segregation and b) is located in a majority African-American neighborhood.

        On the surface, it is legal to discriminate against people based on the school they attended. But in a regime that outlaws racial discrimination, this restaurant’s new policy is not going to be legal because the scholastic discrimination is being used as a proxy for racial discrimination.

        In the case of this restaurant, the argument is that “praying before a meal” is being used as a proxy for discrimination based on religion.

        • jim_m

          Stupid hypothetical.

          FIrst of all any hypothetical where someone is refused service is bullshit since no one is refused service.

          Second of all no one is given a discount just for “being” anything. They are only given a discount for performing a specific action.

          So all your bogus claims of people not being served or people being discriminated against for who or what they are are bullshit.

          • JWH

            If I’m honest, the hypothetical wasn’t really intended for your analysis. I introduced it to illustrate a concept, and for the edification of others reading this thread. I decline to engage you on this issue. The copious comments here indicate that arguing with you is marginally less futile than rooting for the Cleveland Browns to win the Super Bowl.

          • jim_m

            Your allusion was bullshit. DO you honestly think that anyone is going to say that refusing to serve blacks is legal? Do you honestly think that this is the same thing?

            Seriously? DO you think that giving a person who performs an action that you like (not even all Christians are given this discount) is the same as refusing to serve someone because of their skin color?

            Get a fucking grip. Your analogy is offensive. If your world view is that Christians are racists then just come out and say so. My conclusion that this is your viewpoint is every bit as valid as your analogy.

          • JWH

            Sorry, Jim, no time to answer you. I think Johnny Manziel’s going to take us to the Super Bowl this year.

          • jim_m

            At least Bruce argued the existing case without trying to compare this to some diner in the Jim Crow South of the 50′s.

            Get a grip JWH. Either argue the point or make an analogy that is reasonable.

          • JWH

            I’m a little worried about Johnny Manziel’s off-the-field activities. Do you think that his partying lifestyle will detract from the high quality of football we Cleveland Browns fans have come to expect?

          • Guest

            Do think “Johnny Football” might detract from the quality of Cleveland Browns football with his partying lifestyle?

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE