... a Pennsylvania-based restaurant ...has been offering a 10 percent discount for individuals who bring in a church bulletin on Sundays."Discriminatory"? Sure the restaurant was being discriminatory. That's its right and no business of the bleeding government.
... Citing this action as discriminatory, John Wolff, a local atheist, filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). Now, the restaurant will be forced to offer discounts to any individual who brings in a pamphlet involving religious faith — including atheism.
Note that the PHRC polices human 'relations' rather than human 'rights'.
Note also that the PHRC designates atheism as a "religious faith". The atheists can't be too happy with that.
13 comments:
Here in the US, we have the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of religion (specifically, title II).
Would it be the restaurant's "right" if they decided to say "no blacks/jews/asians/muslims/etc. allowed", or charged any of those groups more than they charged anyone else?
This is insane but not surprising. This is not discrimination. Many establishments offer discounts if you have a flyer from another place and usually it is some other business. I doubt this would stand up in an actual court, since it has nothing to do with the civil rights act of 1964.
"I doubt this would stand up in an actual court, since it has nothing to do with the civil rights act of 1964"
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 . . . without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. §2000a(a).
Some religions (e.g. some conservative Jewish sects) prohibit their members from entering a religious building (like a church) since it isn't part of their religion and may confuse other members as to what is and isn't proper worship for that religion -- they can't get a church bulletin without violating their religion, so they can't get the discount, violating the "full and equal" requirement.
This violation goes away if you remove the religious requirement, which is what they ultimately did.
Brian, sorry but your thinking is twisted, and I still say it is doubtful that a real court would find discrimination. What is more important is that this erodes the basic rights of the owner of the establishment.
What is more important is that this erodes the basic rights of the owner of the establishment.
So do laws requiring lunch counters to serve people regardless of race or religion.
I still say it is doubtful that a real court would find discrimination.
I only know of one that actually went to court, and in that particular case, if you didn't have a church bulletin, they'd give you one -- but the judge also ruled that it would be illegal to deny the discount to someone for lacking a church bulletin.
LAS, I didn't lump all atheists together in this. At least I didn't intend to. I don't subscribe to any particular religion and have nothing against atheists in general. It's only the strident, activist, harrassing variety who annoy me.
It's only the strident, activist, harrassing variety who annoy me.
Well, like I said at the start, under US law, this is illegal. You are free to try and change the law, but right now you're complaining about atheists insisting that the law be followed.
I'm complaining about humourless, bullying idiot atheists who harrass businesses with stupid complaints. And I'm complaining about government "human relations" scolds who accommodate bullying idiot atheists. Given the story presented in this case the PHRC should have told the complainant to get lost.
I wish I worked at this restaurant. I would serve the atheist and make sure a hawked plenty of loogies and sprinkled a few ass hairs on his meal before I served it to him.
You're a total bullshitter when it comes to saying you have no problem with atheists as they are, and you know it. You're attacking an individual person, an atheist, for standing up for his rights through a law that was there already.
If you truly despised the law more than the atheist in question, or indeed atheists anywhere, you'd apologize, take back your stupid remarks here, and focus on the damn law, not the individual. The individual is meaningless in your pursuit of what you believe are unjust laws.
But I have little expectation of that happening.
And Volkov? As far as JR apologizing? Why in hell should he? YOU came to HIS blog! If you don't like it don't come back. This B.S. about apologizing for everything.
If you are too much of sensitive little sh** to handle it then go back to living in your little plastic bubble and Twitter some of your newly married polygamous gay friends in your support group and have yourself a good cry. THEN stfu, kay?
I heartily endorse the last two comments!:)
Post a Comment