Religion
Related: About this forumOn religious discrimination in private business, a refresher course and eduction on Civil Rights...
Namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark legislation that helped make segregation illegal nationwide. But people seem to forget that it went far beyond race, it defined certain attributes of people that private business of public accommodation(open to the public at large) are not allowed to discriminate against in any way.
This is technically a response to this thread. However I feel that the complainant in that thread has no standing in that case, so it would have to fall to someone who actually was individually discriminated against.
We are most interested, in this thread in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Source: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript
I emphasized the mentions I think would apply to the case mentioned in the OP I link to. Also, definitions of public accommodations is below:
Section 201.b(1-4) more or less defines places of public accommodation as any place of business that is open to the public, but it actually lists a shitload of examples, look at the link above, its two paragraphs, at least, of examples, pretty exhaustive.
Mostly I created this thread as a response to those who compared this religious discrimination with senior discounts, student discounts, coupon clipping, etc. There's a huge difference though, look at the excerpt from the bill I mentioned, does it list ANY of those as protected classes? Are any of those considered protected classes in any of the 50 states that expands upon the Civil Rights Bill of 1964? Were they added in other federal bills after 1964? If not, then stop the comparisons, it makes you look ignorant.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I hadn't realized women were that excluded from civil rights in 1964.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)thread is only about Title II. Though some states and future federal laws do address sex discrimination in other areas.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)even though the definition of "private" is ambiguous. This is why Knights of Columbus can be Catholic Only, or many private golf clubs excluded, for many years after 1964, Blacks, Jews, other minorities, women, etc.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)to discriminate patronage based on gender in a place of public accommodation. Perhaps because of public bathrooms?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and the assumption at the time was that it was a poison pill to kill the bill(the amendment was added by a Southern Dem). But the bill passed anyway, and it apparently wasn't a poison pill, the Democrat in question then lobbied for the passing of the ERA from the 70s to the 80s.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Stupid atheists! This is such a silly issue!
Thanks, cbayer, after promising to try and understand what it's like as a non-believer in this country. At least you're showing your true colors.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)20%? Maybe 50%?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)whatever is needed to get the discount.
That's not the case here, as has been pointed out over and over again.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)It never has been. Simply because a test is easy to pass doesn't mean its not a test.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)jews who attend services on Saturdays, but would not discriminate against atheists who attend UU churches or other organizations that meet on Sundays?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...tells us immediately that this practice does not pass the smell test, right?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or lack of religious beliefs. It only has to do with being in possession of a piece of paper which is widely available.
Some atheists go to services on sundays (even to churches). Some theists don't. Those that identify as witches might go. Others might not. And on and on.
Going to or not going to a service does not necessarily reflect if one is religious or not.
If the restaurant required one to profess a certain belief, that would be different, imho.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Says those that enjoy the privilege.
You really don't get that, do you?
humblebum
(5,881 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)[IMG][/IMG]
humblebum
(5,881 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)If you ever think I "get it" as you see it, then I will have taken a very strong and strange turn for the worst.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Same concept as white privilege or male privilege. There are examples all over the place on this thread and the church bulletin thread.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Nor does it matter if it is requiring one to profess a certain belief or not. That it is requiring somebody to provide paraphernalia of a religious nature in order to acquire discounted goods is in and of itself wrong.
Like I said, this particular situation simply fails the smell test.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)flying for free. Age discrimination is illegal last I knew.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...assuming we live long enough. And we were all at one point children. The same does not hold true for religion.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)access a church bulletin. Old people are still old.
Now I suppose if a 30 Y.O. wants to hang around for another 35 years or so, then they would qualify for the senior discount.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)One is something everybody everywhere will eventually either have taken advantage of or will eventually be able to take advantage of (assuming they live long enough). The other requires one to specifically acquire a piece of religious paraphernalia.
If, however, you believe such discounts are age discrimination, then I suggest you challenge them in a court of law. Perhaps finding some legal precedent would be a good idea.
Here's lawyers.com speaking about the legality of senior discounts and their take on the issue:
Generally, yes, so long as some general rules are followed. The discounts have to be given equally. Under federal civil rights law, companies and businesses offering services and goods to the public - such as food, lodging, gasoline and entertainment - can't discriminate against customers based upon their race, color, religion, or national origin.
(emphasis mine)
The general rule seems to be if it is a discount that everybody, everywhere will eventually be able to obtain, it is legal. If it is discriminatory in some other way, not so much.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)in the case of the restaurant, anyone with a church bulletin can receive the discount, even those from atheist inclusive churches or purely atheist churches. It is a huge stretch to even call that discrimination.
If one cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin as you point out then any person from Podunk who only speaks Podunkanese, could sue for not being able to order from an English language menu.
Yes, you are rationalizing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the status of merely possessing and displaying a church bulletin does not qualify as a "religion" in any applicable sense of that word.
The counter-action (and what I would do if I were the complainant, rather than clogging up the courts) is to just do up a church bulletin on my computer, and change the date any time I wanted to go to this place and get a discount. Maybe the first time it would be for the Church of Satan (and I would be the minister, choir director, usher and coffee server every service). You could have a lot of fun with a little imagination. And of course, THEN if they try to tell you that particular church or religion doesn't qualify for the discount, you've got them on Title II grounds.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)think of the amount of effort you put into getting the discount versus an average churchgoer.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)since they have to get up early on Sunday, shave, get into niceish clothes, give money, sing when they have no voice, and sit through a dull sermon in an uncomfortable seat, all just to get a piece of paper. Not to mention having to turn their brain off through most of it (assuming it is ever on to begin with).
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)by creating a possible undue burden on a person to get a discount that favours, by default, practising religious people, could be interpreted as discriminatory.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I was looking at it mainly as a way to have some fun and tweak the people doing it, while maybe exposing a little hypocrisy along the way.
struggle4progress
(118,211 posts)You can dig up a dozen pdf files of current church bulletins with five minutes of google
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)a church bulletin. Have a nice day.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)Romanian and the menu was printed in English, such constitutes discrimination against Romanians? Yes, it is very much the issue.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)humblebum
(5,881 posts)you might then have a valid argument. But as it is, you truly are manufacturing one where none exists.
However, if the restaurant posted a 'no atheists allowed sign' then you would definitely have a case.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you don't get to decide this, thank Satan.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)Response to humblebum (Reply #33)
Post removed
humblebum
(5,881 posts)The undue religious burden you speak of has been initiated by the atheist. This is no different than requiring a coupon clipped out of a newspaper to receive a discount, which would constitute an undue burden upon those who don't subscribe to the local paper.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But nice try tho.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)would have a case. But as it is, they are not.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I disagree. We'll see what the courts decide.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Why not a program from a local school play?
Think about it - what kind of reasoning chooses to require *church bulletins* for this promotion?
I know, because I've experienced the prejudice first hand.
struggle4progress
(118,211 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)but not those from synagogues or mosques? I mean, Jews and Muslims could just stop at a church and get a valid bulletin, or print one out online. Thus, no discrimination.
Would you still laugh it off?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Look at them complain about just having to stop at a Christian church to get a bulletin or just print one off online. Aren't they silly.
because I'm sure I could name the person who is going to alert on this hoping that they get a jury that will lock me out of this discussion
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)if the goal is to increase traffic. Why include the church bulletin?
As cbayer said when she was mocking the atheists, it's only $0.50 on a $5.00 tab so it's not going to break him. Just give everyone the discount and you should bring in EVEN MORE people on Sunday. But he didn't do that; he wants a church bulletin. Now why would he do that and not do even more to increase traffic?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)with this approach is already out, coming home from church services, more likely to say 'let's grab lunch on the way home' as opposed to those who stayed home Sunday morning going out .
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)"I've just been to church" money somehow spend differently than the "I just got up but I'm hungry" money?
ETA: This is, by far, the weakest apologist attempt I've read this thread. Congratulations.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)restaurant field but you most have missed the lesson on how it is easier to generate customer flow by appealing to those more likely to already be out and passing your location and making a specific appeal to those people than by making a generic appeal to those less likely to be customers on a day like Sunday when traffic is usually quite slow.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Is the restaurant "on the way home" for everyone who attended a church service? Please provide documentation of this claim.
Next, how do you know everyone who DIDN'T go to church stayed home? What if they were volunteering somewhere, or working, or taking a walk?
Prove both of your assumptions, then you can lecture us about marketing.
DBoon
(22,337 posts)I think a creative atheist could have a lot of fun with this and show up the business in question as fools
Public humiliation is always better than the courts, especially when your opponents are inviting ridicule
dimbear
(6,271 posts)massive donations to anti-gay causes.
http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ffrf-bawks-at-florida-chick-fil-as-unlawful-discount-jan18-2012/
Another case of knowing when to choose their battles, apparently.