Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:03 PM
 
1,168 posts, read 1,243,853 times
Reputation: 912

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
The law is not so hot on discrimination.
You asked about fairness and thoughts, not about legality
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:06 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,130,345 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Yes, it is a reach that uses the "because I did not receive a benefit, I was harmed" fallacy common to Victimology 101.
I don't know what Victimology 101 is...

I went to an academic-centered university.

In any case, can you show legal precedent for your "because I did not receive a benefit argument..."

It appears the EEOC believes that not receiving a benefit is the same as "harm".... This is employment law and not a direct correlate, but interesting none the less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:09 PM
 
13,927 posts, read 5,613,473 times
Reputation: 8594
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
I don't know what Victimology 101 is...

I went to an academic-centered university.

In any case, can you show legal precedent for your "because I did not receive a benefit argument..."

It appears the EEOC believes that not receiving a benefit is the same as "harm".... This is employment law and not a direct correlate, but interesting none the less.
Looks like you found yourself a good civil rights case. I recommend going to that restaurant, not praying, not getting the discount, then suing the buhjeezus out of them to make them pay for religious discrimination. Lord knows (can I type that without it being a hate crime?) private businesses offering selective discounts is something that must be banned immediately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,714 posts, read 31,153,663 times
Reputation: 9270
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
Maybe.

Is it a reach to say those who choose not to pray are paying a 20% premium?
It is a reach to say that.

A restaurant may have a frequent diner's card - which rewards regular customers. That means non-regular customers pay more.

A restaurant may deny service to people who do not dress appropriately.

Restaurants sometimes say "no children."

So I see nothing wrong per se for a restaurant offering a discount to people who pray. I would probably not choose this restaurant (unless the food was stellar) simply because I don't want to eat with public displays of faith all around me. But that is my choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:12 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,130,345 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
It is a reach to say that.

A restaurant may have a frequent diner's card - which rewards regular customers. That means non-regular customers pay more.

A restaurant may deny service to people who do not dress appropriately.

Restaurants sometimes say "no children."

So I see nothing wrong per se for a restaurant offering a discount to people who pray. I would probably not choose this restaurant (unless the food was stellar) simply because I don't want to eat with public displays of faith all around me. But that is my choice.
Fair enough. However, religion is covered by anti-discrimination laws.

Is infrequent dining, poor dress or the presence of children?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:12 PM
 
13,927 posts, read 5,613,473 times
Reputation: 8594
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
So I see nothing wrong per se for a restaurant offering a discount to people who pray. I would probably not choose this restaurant (unless the food was stellar) simply because I don't want to eat with public displays of faith all around me. But that is my choice.
You would be part of the common sense club who would simply exercise individual choice in the matter, choosing to simply not patronize an establishment with which you find something disagreeable.

Litigious antagonizers don't have that common sense, and if they do, they choose to never use it preferring instead to make people suffer for the sin of being randomly pleasant to others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:13 PM
 
Location: New London County, CT
8,949 posts, read 12,130,345 times
Reputation: 5145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Looks like you found yourself a good civil rights case.
I think it would be an interesting case. My interest is purely intellectual, however. I have not been harmed and have no standing, nor desire, to sue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:19 PM
 
13,927 posts, read 5,613,473 times
Reputation: 8594
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
I think it would be an interesting case. My interest is purely intellectual, however. I have not been harmed and have no standing, nor desire, to sue.
Someone will, that's for sure. One of the worst crimes you can commit in the Litigious States of America is being randomly nice to some people for random personal reasons. Such vile horrors must be purged from our midst.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:20 PM
 
4,412 posts, read 3,956,918 times
Reputation: 2326
I can't be the only Christian who finds this sort of pandering to be distasteful. Mixing religious preferences with your business advertising beyond tacky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Then explain Ladies' Night at any bar where women receive discounts that men do not.

By all means.
Probably because no one has bothered to sue and show that harm is caused by giving the discount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2014, 12:21 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,175,777 times
Reputation: 18824
I'd frequent that restaurant every chance I had. I'd be hella convincing too!

All I have to do is babble some incantation and get a phat discount?

I'm in. Especially if the grubb is good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top