The Washington Post is reporting that the restaurant is dropping its "prayer
discount" after being informed that it's a rather blatant violation of
state and federal public accommodations laws which prohibit discrimination on
the basis of religion (at the very least, non-believers were disadvantaged by
the policy, as were those who chose not to pray in public).Good to
see that the restaurant owners have some common sense.
The fact that we are talking about Nazis and Jim Crow in this context
demonstrates how thoroughly absurd American discourse about equality and liberty
has become, and how utterly incapable our society is of maintaining the sense of
proportion that is necessary for a functioning civil society.
There have been a few comments discussing charging a specific group 15% more for
being a member of that group- that is not the issue here. If the restaurant
states that a burger is $5 and you get a burger and you pay $5, where is the
problem? When you placed your order you agreed to the price. If they choose to
give the same burger to someone else for $4- great. No one has any right to
complain because they didn't get a $4 burger- they ordered a $5 burger.
Why is it a problem for an owner of a private business to reward
something that it sees as valuable?
@David MohrThat quote was never about the Nazis persecuting the
gays. The exact saying is:First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist.Then they
came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not
a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak
out-- Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me--and there
was no one left to speak for me.That quote is about equality. You
could very, very easily apply it to the gay marriage debate. Many people who
are not gay are standing against religion because they see the dangers of just
saying "Oh well, this has nothing to do with me". This is exactly why I
am so outspoken on the subject. Someday the subject will shift and maybe
I'll be the one being targeted then. More than a few people in the world
view being atheist as a bad/evil thing. Easily makes me a target someday should
they ever gain real authority.
@FrozenFractals you missed my point. There was a saying about the Nazis
persecuting the gays - I said nothing - I wasn't gay and down the line
until they came to me but there was no one to stand up for me.We are
allowing people to set precedent without realizing where it is leading. We think
that complaining about this now won't lead to something that is presently
unthinkable. We have to stop that kind of thinking. The best example I can think
of is that there are towns in the USA where you can be fined for doing charity
work if you are not a registered charity - the one I remember is where a family
was feeding the homeless and they had to stop. It didn't matter that the
local charities were unable to fill that void.I believe in a world
where you don't have to hire women, coloureds, etc but you hire these
people as they are qualified. Government forcing you to hire to them is another
example of Satan's plan to take away free agencys. Complaints like who
should get a discount play into Satan's plan.
One day in a restaurant, I watched a young married Hispanic couple, with a young
toddler having dinner. I appreciated how the couple worked with their toddler
to teach him to be respectful. When I left the restaurant I paid part of their
dinner bill. Now I know I was bad, I rewarded them for being
married?, for being Hispanic? for having a marriage between a man and a women?
For having children? To be non discriminatory I should have paid the same for
all the patrons in the restaurant, and every restaurant in the nation. How dare
I discriminate. Or I guess I just keep the money to myself as not to
discriminate. I read here charitable acts by individuals are
discriminatory in the minds of liberal progressives. How dare you decide when
and where to exercise your charitable spirit. This thread has been
an argument about the right to act or the governments right to prevent a
charitable act and its recipient. The restaurant did not advertise its
discount, simply they awarded it on their choice of criteria. Love when people judge other people based on a book they don't believe
in. Ultimate hypocrite.
@MaxPower;Regarding your questions, we've already seen many
people on these threads indicate that they would simply charge a gay couple more
when asked to make a wedding cake simply to cause the couple grief because the
business owner didn't want to do it.I'm sure they'd
be just as fine about it if we charged a Mormon couple more simply because they
were Mormon. Not.So many so-called "religious" people are
such hypocrites its incredible. And that bible they're always thumping
denounces hypocrites far more often than almost any other type of
"sin".@illuminated;Would "truth in
advertising" laws would apply? They list a price for an object, if they
charged more for that object to you than someone else, wouldn't that be
false advertising?@procuradorfiscal;"Decent, honest
folks (who pray)"I am led to understand that the Mafiosi are
quite religious and they also pray. Does that make them "decent, honest
folks"?@SLCMom;Please do a bit more research about
"the right to refuse service to *anyone*". (Can't w/o a legitimate
I am glad that I was raised the way I was, where there was no such thing aspolitically correct, corporate america; where right was right and wrong was
wrong, good was good and evil was evil. How sad our country is these days;
just sad to watch!
Utah has barred disparate treatment based upon religion in places of public
accommodation, such as restaurants, for 40+ years.By these comments
seems like many folks are ready for a change. Why now? And which legislator will
you ask to sponsor the repeal bill?== Utah Code 13-7-3. Equal
right in business establishments, places of public accommodation, and
enterprises regulated by the state. All persons within
the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal and are entitled to full and
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, goods and services in
all business establishments and in all places of public accommodation, and by
all enterprises regulated by the state of every kind whatsoever, without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ancestry or national
origin. Nothing in this act shall be construed to deny any person the right to
regulate the operation of a business establishment or place of public
accommodation or an enterprise regulated by the state in a manner which applies
uniformly to all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, ancestry,
or national origin; or to deny any religious organization the right to regulate
the operation and procedures of its establishments.
I am skeptical of a business that would provide a 15% discount to all patrons
who publicly pray in the establishment. It is not dis-similar to a business
that perpetually offers their merchandise on sale. As a customer, I realize
that in reality the business has marked the product up by 15% so they can mark
it down by 15% and add the advertising "On Sale". In effect, what this
business is doing is marking up the prices for those customers who do not pray
in public. The reason I say this is because in order to stay in business, it
must be profitable. If the published prices are profitable but all of their
patrons pray in the restaurant the business would soon be no more. Therefore,
the published prices must be too high. I would probably not patronize this
jskains,It was local and state govt. that created Jim Crow laws.
Those govt. entities closest to the people.Jim Crow reflected the
opinions of the local civic leaders that effectively control city councils and
statehouses.It was the federal govt. that stepped in to stop it.
Essentially, the views of non-southerners overriding the views of
southerners.Had it been left to the locals, some of those laws would
likely still be in place.
Where the line gets drawn is far complicated a question to answer. There
obviously is a line, but no one is going to write a book on what is appropriate
and what isn't. Offering benefits to certain groups I see as appropriate.
Like seniors, military, law enforcement, missionaries etc. By rewarding one
party you are not punishing the others. If this place was offering discounts
for people praying, and adding a heathen tax on to people that didn't then
I would agree a line has been crossed.Illuminated, what business do
you run? I'd like to know where to avoid so I don't accidently give
you money! :)
Illuminated,If you truly believe in freedom, please share with us
the name of the company for which you are CEO, and let the public use their
freedom to decide whether or not to patronize your business.
@illuminated"The only person acting like an animal is the one who
wants to be stuck in a cage and herded about by a taskmaster who gets to define
the "brand" of freedom burned onto you."As opposed to
those who think people should be able to treat others like animals...
Illuminated that type of business might work for you as CEO of Jethro's Gas
and Stuff, but it doesn't fly in the grown up world. If you deny service
based on racism/bigotry you either won't be CEO long, or run a business
that is so irrelevant that no one notices/cares.In your mind was
civil rights a insult because it went against your "right" to
discriminate?Either way I'm done talking to someone who seems
to miss the good old days of segregation. Shameful.
As a nonbeliever, I must confess that it does bother me to think I would have to
pay $6 more for my meal than a person who "loves to pray publicly...where
everyone can see them." (Matthew 6:6).I understand when
believers want to play favorites and give discounts and benefits to their fellow
believers (withholding those benefits from non believers). But how far should
such things go? What about jobs and promotions to fellow believers over non
believers? What about excluding no believers from neighborhoods?Where do you draw the line?
"Why does your freedom suddenly stop at physically harming someone?"Because that is as far as the Constitution goes: Life and Liberty.
Those are two basic thing the Constitution gurantees. It doesn't guarantee
freedom from hate or bigotry. If you want to live in a country like that, feel
free to find another."I own multiple businesses. I'm glad
that the government steps in from time to time. I don't want the
"right" to be a racist bigot and deny service to someone based solely on
their skin color."I am a CEO myself, and the right to be a
racist and bigot is protected by the Constitution with freedom of speech. And
as a CEO, I deny and continue to deny service based on anything I want to
because that's my freedom. Shame on you for trying to force me and others
on how to run their own business and private property. The only
person acting like an animal is the one who wants to be stuck in a cage and
herded about by a taskmaster who gets to define the "brand" of freedom
burned onto you.
@illuminatedWhy does your freedom suddenly stop at physically
harming someone? I mean you're either free or you're not right? Why
aren't you free to just hurt anyone you want to? You don't get to
tell him that there is no "brand of freedom" and then turn around and
dictate the rules of what freedom is in the same post. I own
multiple businesses. I'm glad that the government steps in from time to
time. I don't want the "right" to be a racist bigot and deny
service to someone based solely on their skin color. That is not the kind of
country I want to live in and you should be ashamed of yourself if you do. We
are better than that. If we have to lose "freedoms" to stop acting like
animals then so be it.
Seriously? People have an issue with this? I guess I should be fighting for
equal treatment myself! Why should senior citizens get discounts that I
can't just because I'm older. And what of these military or police or
fire fighter discounts - what about us accountants? Or student discounts -
should I be mistreated just because I graduated? I could go on and on about the
"injustices" in this cruel world!
@Frozen Fractals"Your brand of freedom..."That
kind of talk brings back haunting images of speeches by Totalitarian dictators,
Kings and Tyrants. There is no "brand" of freedom, you're either
free or not free. Discrimination is part of freedom, being able to choose who I
associate with, who I do business with, and who I give my money to is part of
being free. As long as I'm not physically harming someone, true freedom
encapsulates everything else I do.Businesses often donate to causes
they believe in all the time. These "causes" include boy scouts,
churches, charities, local municipal events and so on. If a local Asian
restaurant wanted to give discounts or even give donations to people praying to
Buddha before they ate, I have no problem with that. Let them be free. If a
business hates black people, picket and boycott the crap out of them, but
don't force them to agree with you by government fiat. That's how the
Constitution was set up.
Ok liberals, lets see you practice what you preach. If you go anywhere that
offers a Senior discount, you should demand to pay the regular price. You
don't want to be a hypocrite for supporting and using age discrimination to
save yourself a few dollars.You should also go out and complain
about businesses that give firemen, policemen, and military discounts. What
about frequent shopper discounts, why should they get a discount or free meal
just because they go to that place a lot?
Even as a liberal atheist I don't see the problem here. If they want to
offer discounts for praying then let them. As a business owner I respect the
right to do business how a owner sees fit. Denying service because of skin
color, being gay, religious beliefs etc is wrong. This is not the same
thing.If I want to give my friends a 30% discount on all purchases
in my stores then I will. It isn't illegal, or unethical to do so. Denial
of service, or unfairly charging more is not the same thing as giving bonuses
for behavior you approve of.
RE: "The government is there to protect the rights of individuals from
bigotry, ignorance and hate." (Cocosweet) - If this is true, then the
government must ALSO protect the restaurateur who is experiencing bigotry,
ignorance and hate for her simple gesture of kindness as she follows the
'dictates of her own conscience'. Whether one agrees or disagrees with
her discount, she is still operating her business legally. Consider: Does she
not have the right to run her business the way she chooses within the parameters
of the law? YES. Of course, there are plenty of lawmakers who are working hard
to tear down religious freedom and personal rights under the guise of
"promoting equality".Bottom line: Discounts at any business are at
the discretion of that business. The right of a business to "refuse
service" to anyone they choose is ALSO their legal prerogative. And of
course, the right of the customer to refuse to shop there is ALSO in force. Let
the free market reign.
How is this news? Ever heard of stake Lagoon day? Mormon night (Colorado
Rockies)? This kind of stuff happens all over the country, all the time. I
personally don't like it, but it's legal, and if it's legal for
one private business it should be legal for all of them.
It's non of the governments business if people pray at a restaurant. And if
that company gives a discount for it.Businesses give discounts to
rich people that make a lot of purchases. That could be discriminatory to those
of us who don't have the same purchasing power.We give
discounts to people for being poor via welfare food stamps, utilities subsidies,
education etc.Why not focus on tax breaks? The ones that make the
wealthy, wealthier such as the obamas, Clintons, pelosis, kerrys, carter etc.
Why not get rid of the tax breaks for those in unions? Why should they get to
put money into political parties tax free, simply by belonging to a union? Why
do they get to use pretax dollars to pay their union dues? How is that fair for
those who don't belong to a union?
Freedom includes the freedom to please some people and (deliberately or
inadvertently) offending others. You can win or lose customers any way you
want. Unlike government entities, no one is forced to eat at a private
restaurant, and the entirely justifiable restrictions on government
discrimination rightly do not apply to private enterprise in a free society.Anyone offended by religious discounts should be free to open a
competing restaurant with atheist discounts. Heck, offer double discounts for
Satanic worshipers if you like.Equal opportunity does not guarantee
equal outcomes, including in the restaurant business.What we are
really seeing is the ongoing "war on religion" waged by the left who
want everyone to only worship at the altar of government, and to be blessed only
by "free stuff" from the government.
@procuradorfiscal"It would certainly be OK by liberals, libertines,
and atheists."You do realize that we're advocating for
everyone to be treated the same, right? Nobody actually is saying to charge
people who pray more, it's being used as an example of "would you all
still approve of disparate treatment if you were disadvantaged"." But, at the same time, anyone that had the temerity to favor honest,
decent folks "All you know is that someone is praying. That does
nothing to tell us whether they're honest, decent folks or if someone who
isn't praying isn't honest or decent. There's honest, decent
religious and non-religious folks and dishonest and indecent religious and
non-religious folks.@illuminatedYour brand of freedom seems
quite harmful to any sort of minority (black, gay, LDS, Muslim). Are you a
straight white male Christian? I'm just wondering how privileged you'd
be in your hypothetical.
@David Mohr "If I am in a town without restaurants and open a Chinese
restaurant, are you going to complain that I only serve Chinese food?"No, the issue is treating different customers differently, in this case
you're serving Chinese food to everyone.Also I like Chinese
food so there wouldn't be any complaints from me anyway.
"By the same token, would it OK to charge 15% more to those who
pray?"Absolutely. If someone wants to charge me more for praying
in their restaurant, as long as they are informing me first, I have no problem
with that. But I would never eat there again, and I am sure they would go out of
business very quickly.Are you against freedom? The restaurant is
-their property-, not yours, they have a right to be morons. If someone walked
into your home and started praying and you asked them to stop, would you be
against allowing the government to force you to allow them to pray on your
property?"The government is there to protect the rights of
individuals from bigotry, ignorance and hate."No they're
not. Bigotry and hate is a personal right. I have a right to hate or love any
group I want. Disagree with me all you want, but it's not the
government's job to force me to love. If a white man wants to close his
restaurant to a black man, that should be his choice. -His choice to be
stupid-.Why do you hate freedom?
Re: ". . . would it OK to charge 15% more to those who pray?"It would certainly be OK by liberals, libertines, and atheists. But, at the
same time, anyone that had the temerity to favor honest, decent folks would
immediately become a target of the political and moral left.
I don't think I like where this is heading.If I can give a
discount for a religious family...can I1) Charge more to a black
family?2) Charge more to a gay couple?3) Charge more to a known and
professed Athiest?A family, couple, or person should be able to go
to any restaurant in the public square and be able to eat without fear of
mistreatment by the establisment. Obvious exceptions would be if they were
being a nuisance, didn't meet a certain dress code that had already been
"These are private businesses owned by citizens, not government
institutions. If you don't like their policcies, don't eat there.
Don't run to mommy government to fight your battles."I
agree. I always thought the same thing concerning restaurants that served
alcohol or allowed smoking. The free market would sort this out.
By the same token, would it OK to charge 15% more to those who pray? or those
who pray to the wrong god? Good publicity stunt, the right will eat
@cocosweet There are too many assumptions for your statement to be absolutely
true. It was "mommy" government who created the problems in the first
place. It was "mommy" government that wrote the Jim Crow laws. So
perhaps if government had stayed out of it in the first place, we'd be a
lot further along in the race relations area than we are now. Often
"bigotry" and "ignorance" work themselves out naturally in a
much faster way than government playing social engineer.
I have always felt discriminated against when seniors got discounts and when
military got discounts. Does that count also? This world is so caught up in
"ME" that it is becoming disgusting how we cannot allow anyone to
express their appreciation of anyone without some one else complaining that you
didn't recognize me. If I am in a town without restaurants and open a
Chinese restaurant, are you going to complain that I only serve Chinese food?I was always taught to vote with my feet - if you don't like the
policy of a place of business then don't patronize the business.
While I rather agree with FatherofFour, if "mommy" government (jskains)
hadn't intervened in the South there would still be white and black water
fountains (ect). The government is there to protect the rights of individuals
from bigotry, ignorance and hate.
jskains,I agree. These are private businesses with their own rules.
If they want to give discounts to Muslims only they can. If they want to refuse
service for whatever reason they should be allowed to. This way guys like me can
see what their true intentions are and decide weather or not they want to eat
These are private businesses owned by citizens, not government institutions. If
you don't like their policcies, don't eat there. Don't run to
mommy government to fight your battles. Or better yet, just eat there and get
over it. Are employee discounts discrimination? What about a restaraunt owner
who gives a discount to his friend? That's so unfair! *siigh*