On religious discrimination in private business, a refresher course and eduction on Civil Rights...

[Humanist_Activist]

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]

1. Wow, rude awakening for me, I don't see gender in that list of "on the ground of..."

I hadn't realized women were that excluded from civil rights in 1964.

[Humanist_Activist]

2. Other sections of the bill address sex discrimination, mostly in relation to employment, this...

thread is only about Title II. Though some states and future federal laws do address sex discrimination in other areas.

[Lionessa]

3. I understand, I'm just shocked, I guess they wanted to keep their men only places to patronize.

[Humanist_Activist]

4. This only applies to places of public accommodation, private clubs are specifically exempt...

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]

6. Okay, then I go back to my original, I didn't realize it was legal (w/ regard to 1964 civil rights)

to discriminate patronage based on gender in a place of public accommodation. Perhaps because of public bathrooms?

[Humanist_Activist]

9. What gender discrimination protections there are in the law were put there...

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]

5. He has bigger problem than standing.

[cbayer]

11. You are right. He won't be able to get that $5.99 breakfast special for $5.40.

[trotsky]

17. Ha ha ha ha!

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]

21. +1 n/t

[eqfan592]

37. So at what point does an illegal, discriminatory discount become worthy of complaint?

20%? Maybe 50%?

[cbayer]

41. At the point where any person can't take advantage it because they can't obtain

whatever is needed to get the discount.

That's not the case here, as has been pointed out over and over again.

[eqfan592]

42. Ease of attainment is not at issue.

It never has been. Simply because a test is easy to pass doesn't mean its not a test.

[cbayer]

43. So, using your argument, this discriminates against christians who don't attend church,

jews who attend services on Saturdays, but would not discriminate against atheists who attend UU churches or other organizations that meet on Sundays?

[eqfan592]

44. you that the fact we would even have to break it down that way...

...tells us immediately that this practice does not pass the smell test, right?

[cbayer]

45. Or the argument could be made that this has nothing to do with one's religious

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]

46. "It's just no big deal." "Why are you getting so upset about it?"

Says those that enjoy the privilege.

You really don't get that, do you?

[humblebum]

47. Neither do you. NT

[eqfan592]

48. That literally made no sense whatsoever....

[IMG][/IMG]

[humblebum]

49. Why am I not surprised you don't get it either? nt

[eqfan592]

51. humblebum, that you don't think I "get it" is actually the greatest compliment you can pay me.

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]

57. What privilege would that be?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Christian privilege

Same concept as white privilege or male privilege. There are examples all over the place on this thread and the church bulletin thread.

[eqfan592]

50. It doesn't matter how widely available the piece of paper is.

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]

52. Well i guess that's the end of senior discounts and children

flying for free. Age discrimination is illegal last I knew.

[eqfan592]

53. We all eventually get old...

...assuming we live long enough. And we were all at one point children. The same does not hold true for religion.

[humblebum]

55. Now you are rationalizing. They are still forms of discrimination, except that atheists can easily

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]

59. Not rationalizing at all.

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:

Are They Legal?
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]

60. It's still discrimination whether or not it is legal or illegal. And

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]

7. The counter-argument is, of course

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]

8. I guess it depends on how the court would interpret "advantages"...

think of the amount of effort you put into getting the discount versus an average churchgoer.

[skepticscott]

10. I would say considerably less

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]

12. I'm thinking of how a court would view it...

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. Well, that explains it

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]

14. All the restaurant cares about is increasing business traffic on slow Sundays

You can dig up a dozen pdf files of current church bulletins with five minutes of google

[Humanist_Activist]

15. The question I ask is, why should I have to, why not make it 10% off Sundays? n/t

[humblebum]

16. It has already been shown that you don't need to be a believer to obtain

a church bulletin. Have a nice day.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. That is not the issue. n./t

[humblebum]

29. Oh, but it is the issue. If I only spoke

Romanian and the menu was printed in English, such constitutes discrimination against Romanians? Yes, it is very much the issue.

[Humanist_Activist]

30. What the hell are you babbling on about? n/t

[humblebum]

31. I might ask you the same question. If atheists were unable to obtain a bulletin,

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]

32. Undue and unnecessary burden based on religious practice is enough...

you don't get to decide this, thank Satan.

[humblebum]

33. So you think invoking Satan is going to change reality? Interesting.

[humblebum]

35. You seem to be the one in a tizzy here.

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]

38. Newspaper subscribers/non-subscribers are not a protected class.

But nice try tho.

[humblebum]

39. If a protected class was being denied anything here then you

would have a case. But as it is, they are not.

[eqfan592]

40. So says you.

I disagree. We'll see what the courts decide.

[trotsky]

18. Why church bulletins?

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]

19. Cuz she's hopin folk drivin home after services will think

Holy Schmidt! I got the church bulletin right-cheer onna seat beside me. Why don't I go drop in for lunch at 10% discount NOW steada goin home first where I might accidentally drop the bulletin into my rubbish bin fulla chicken grease and kitty litter? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=34254

[trotsky]

20. What if the restaurant owner accepted church bulletins,

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. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, stupid Jews and Muslims

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]

23. Nobody has addressed this: why not make Sunday 10% off day

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]

24. +100

[Leontius]

25. Because the traffic they're trying to get into the restaurant

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]

26. Does that

"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]

28. Didn't know you had such an expertise in marketing and advertising in the

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]

36. Assumes facts not in evidence.

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]

54. You have maybe read a bit of Saul Alinksy

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]

56. Chick-Fil-A now only former advocate of bulletin program, will continue more important

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.