Atheist Discrimination Is Still Discrimination

What if the restaurant only offered discounts to white customers or straight customers?


It's the same concept. "Whites only" establishments went out in the 50s/60s and "christian only" restaurants are no diff.

It just shows how petty our society has become. If an atheist business owner gave discounts to anyone who professed atheism at the register, I would gladly pay the whole bill, and I wouldn't complain to anyone. I might, however, pray for him that night. I think it's awful that any government agency interfered in such a way.

Exactly, Char. Of course, once I realized it was an atheist owner/business, I probably would not return. :)

Restaurant owners used to give discounts to all sorts of groups to attract business. I would think they wanted to have some of the post church lunch crowd and 90% of the usual cost is better than nothing for profit.

You got it, Gary.

This is my argument with atheists...since Chelsea brought them up below~the women's movement & gay rights~both movements fought battles, plenty of them! But, they didn't create them~the battles were already inherent in our culture.
Atheists are creating their own battles to win the war, & they're offending, denigrating, & pissing off plenty of people~not the way to win the war!

No offense, and this will probably be my last statement on the matter, but I don't understand how a liberal can completely disregard a minority group based off the blatant display of the opinion that they just don't matter as much as other minority groups, this further perpetuates the entire point that they're an oppressed group.

"You're not an oppressed individual because I SAY you're not because MY OPINION is that you haven't gone through what THIS GROUP went through." -- this is NOT logic, this is NOT tolerance.

P.s. -- do a little research on all of the atheists that Hitler had murdered during the holocaust. A. Many jews are and were atheistic; B. Hitler hated atheists almost as much as he hated jews.

So thank you for telling me that atheists didn't go through the oppression or hurt in the past that you feel other minority groups have gone through. You might also want to google all of the hate crimes against atheists -- just because of a lack of belief in deities NOT because "we brought it on ourselves" -- unless you're insinuating that being atheist alone is what deserves that treatment, which is starting to look like what you're doing.

...oh my, I cannot believe I'm about to say... I agree with August Lady. Atheists go out of their way to create a battle. They don't stick with just not believing in God, they hate everyone else who does. They proceed with a scorched earth policy.

August Lady -- the fact that Opinion Nate Ted agrees with you and shares the same sentiments you've shared about atheists, should tell you something ;)

Chelsea, are you trying to tell August Lady to get back in line? She sees it for what it is, and she's right on this one. Atheists are in our faces all the time picking a fight. And, we wouldn't be in your faces if you weren't in ours first. There is a reason for the rise in atheists in America, and I think you know where I'm willing to go with that.

"get back in line" ??

Nope, just pointing out the "quality" of people who share her sentiments against a minority group. Bigotry comes in many forms.

...the "bigot" name calling is old, worn out, stale and worthless. And don't even try to place the "struggles" of poor atheists alongside the actual struggles that Blacks have endured as if you're in some equally painful battle.

"...just pointing out the "quality" of people who share her sentiments against a minority group." :)

...do you actually think that atheists as a minority compares to Blacks as a minority? Girl, you're trying to skate on her struggles. What the hell! Must she conform to your thinking?

1. Blacks aren't the only minority group. You apparently didn't realize this.

2. Nobody said she had to confirm to anything, but I think I stated well enough that it's telling of WHO shares her sentiments when she claims to be a tolerant liberal (she's not. She's as intolerant as those who hate blacks, gays, or women).

Atheists have been murdered for being atheists, treated like 3rd class citizens and are further victimized in various hate crimes. Just because atheism isn't a skin color, gender or sexual orientation doesn't make them any less of an oppressed minority.

big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/
Noun:
Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.


It's not name calling to point out bigotry where it's evident. August Lady doesn't think atheists deserve the same treatment as other minority groups in America because they don't share her religious ideals on what laws are okay to break and what constitutional guidelines are broken. In her mind, atheists aren't allowed to complain when their taxes pay for religious displays -- disenfranchising millions of people -- to complain about such an unfair practice would be to upset people so therefore they bring conflict on themselves. This is the same logic used by people who hate other cultures. It's called bigotry and intolerance right down to the definition.

So no, it's not name calling. It's calling a situation exactly what it is.


But this is falling on deaf ears undoubtedly because atheists apparently aren't people unless they shut their mouths and just deal with the problems that they've faced because you know, we're lesser people who don't deserve to be heard -- just like women, blacks, gays, native americans and so many other minority groups have been told by bigots throughout time.

That's all I'll say about this discussion. Since August Lady and you share the same ideology, you're sure to have a lot to talk about as far as delegating what groups are more deserving of equal rights and fair treatment than the others.

"August Lady doesn't think atheists deserve the same treatment as other minority groups in America because they don't share her religious ideals on what laws are okay to break and what constitutional guidelines are broken."

Now Chels, that's not what I said~I said there's no organization in the movement & picking battles 1 by 1 isn't the way to go about it. And, on top of it, crucifying Christians isn't the way to win support for your cause. Hey, but thanx for getting into my mind~I have difficulty sometimes...

No, you have made several statements negating the relevance of atheists as a group of people. You've said that they're in no way as important as the women's rights movement, citing the fact that you were "there" as one of the reasons why, completely negating that Hitler had killed many atheists, that atheists are forced to pay taxes on religious displays that are in violation of federal laws, that atheists have pretty much been oppressed since the dawn of civilization because of the barbarism behind devout religious belief.

Throughout this thread you have stated that atheists make their own oppression by "pissing people off" and kicking up a mess over things that you and other religionists find trivial -- you even revealed just how out of touch you were when your response to me asking you how you'd feel if muslim traditions were being forced in the public here, was that "christian is the predominant religion so, so what" basically.

I didn't have to get in your mind, what little bit of one you have displayed shamelessly throughout this thread to the point that you've attracted the likes of Opinion Nate Ted to agree with you. Like I said, the quality of people who share your sentiments says A LOT about said sentiments.

Just ponder on that for a while next time you want to think that atheists don't know oppression. Just because you're a member of the majority still doesn't make it okay to force others to live under illegal and oppressive circumstances while treating them like third class citizens for speaking out against said unfair treatment.

"I don't understand how a liberal can completely disregard a minority group based off the blatant display of the opinion that they just don't matter as much as other minority groups, this further perpetuates the entire point that they're an oppressed group."

"Nope, just pointing out the "quality" of people who share her sentiments against a minority group. Bigotry comes in many forms."

What the hell? Being gay, African American, female, etc. is not a belief system, it's a state of being, not a choice. You want to paint yourself every color of the rainbow & make a fool out of yourself at a football game, do it if that's how you believe your team should be supported. You want to be an atheist, be an atheist, just stop telling me I can't participate in my beliefs the way I choose, or support like-minded people the way I want to within my organizations or my privately owned businesses. I wouldn't expect to go to a Synagogue & practice Christianity. You don't want to practice my religion, don't come into my groups & insist that I stop because you don't like it. That is oppression. Get your own group & do what you please with it.

While we're on the subject, I'm sick to death of reading hate filled posts that paint Christians as fantasy-fueled, unintelligent, lunatics. That is bigotry. No one is telling Atheists they don't have the right to gather within their organizations, or support their members, doing so is not discriminatory.

As far as I know, Atheists are the only ones going around bringing lawsuits, insisting that every group include people who disagree with the group's belief system. Atheists insist that Christians are forcing them to tolerate their beliefs, but I haven't seen any evidence of Christians insisting that Atheist owned groups include Christians, & abide by their practices.

I don't care what you choose to believe, or how you choose to practice it. You can come sit in my home & be as Atheist as you want, but don't expect to tell me I can't pray before a meal.

you don't "choose" to not believe in deities and fantasy mythology. You either do or you don't. It's not a matter like choosing what you're going to wear for the day.

I stopped reading your post beyond your comment trying to decide what group is deserving over others of being treated fairly. That's bigotry.

People don't base their sexual orientation or the color of their skin on introspect, & research. Religious beliefs are based on exactly that.

I didn't say anything about one group over the other deserving preferential treatment. I said what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't want to be told what to believe, or not believe, it's unacceptable to insert yourself into private organizations & expect others to conform.

However inarticulate I might be right now, as with Wil's comment above, I'm more than willing to admit when I've misspoken. I agree that a law was broken. I said I have to agree with removing prayer from schools, even if I don't like it. I don't agree that it's ok to bring a law suit against a faith based organization, like the Boy Scouts, & insist that they abandon the premise because you {any you} don't like it. It is bigoted for any group to expect to force their views on others in a private setting, & it has nothing to do with fairness. People are perfectly free to start their own group & expect the same respect.

Like you said, you stopped reading. Honestly, if you want others to understand your point, you would get farther if you were willing to at least think about opposing views.

you're only further proving your bigotry.

p.s. -- atheism isn't a religious belief.

Would it be ok if I brought a law suit against a non-religious organization insisting that they base it on religious principles? I guess I didn't express my views very well when you asked me.

I don't think it's right for anyone to try to force someone else to do say or feel anything, ever, or to interfere with anyone's right to do, say, feel, or handle themselves in whatever way they believe is best for them unless it's illegal, or harmful to others.

"As far as I know, Atheists are the only ones going around bringing lawsuits, insisting that every group include people who disagree with the group's belief system."

Could you give some examples of this happening? I see you've mentioned the Boy Scouts in another comment, and I'm aware that there have been a few lawsuits filed by atheists against the BSA. And in each case, the courts have rightly ruled that the BSA, as a private organization, is legally allowed to discriminate against atheists, homosexuals, girls, etc.

Where things get a bit tricky are areas where governments give the Scouts preferential treatment. The BSA should be treated fairly and equally with other private organizations, but there's no reason why they should get preferential treatment any more than, say, the KKK. If they're really a private organization (with the right to discriminate if they want to), then there shouldn't be federal laws that authorize the DoD to provide them with supplies, equipment, transportation, etc. for their events, if the law doesn't apply to other private organizations as well.

Similarly, the US military shouldn't offer an automatic promotion to Eagle Scouts if it doesn't offer it to members of other private organizations. Government organizations shouldn't be sponsors of Scout units. If the BSA wants to enjoy the right, as a private organization, to discriminate against based on gender, religion, sexual preference, etc. then they should do so without receiving millions of dollars in funding from taxpayers.

"Is it ok to force kids to say the pledge with Under God in it?"

I actually already answered that a few times. No, it's not. It's a publicly funded setting.

the "under god" part of the pledge needs to be removed. it wasn't there originally, was added illegally

Wil--I wasn't aware that was happening. As I already said several times, I don't believe public funds should be used to support any private organization. I referred to the Boy Scouts more in depth above. In that comment, I also listed the reasons why I believe their policy is wrong, at least in part.

I really appreciate learning about these things, & I want to learn more, but I'm really not sure why it isn't clear that I've already agreed with your premise. It's getting a little insulting to be repeatedly challenged when I already said over & over & over that I agree. Couldn't you just make the statement & give me the opportunity to disagree if you say something I haven't already agreed with?

"Then why do you use the word, "ever?" Is that a mistake?"

Wow, you asked me specifically about the Pledge of Allegiance as it applies to making kids in schools say it. Please forgive me if I was wrong to assume you were referring to the controversy over religion in public schools. You didn't ask me if I think it's right to hog tie someone, drag them to a church, & threaten them with bodily harm until they swear everlasting allegiance to God. Given the private conversation we just had a few days ago I'm really not sure why you're so insistent on challenging every thing I say, right down to the nth degree.

What the hell? It's not enough that I said here, in other discussions, & in private that I support your ideals, your rights, & your freedom to live any way you see fit, or that I tripled checked to make sure you understood it? You're welcome.

I don't get the "ever" argument... I'm missing something

I really don't either.

"I really appreciate learning about these things, & I want to learn more, but I'm really not sure why it isn't clear that I've already agreed with your premise."

I think it is clear that we agree on a number of things, Becky. I think those things have been covered. You mentioned that atheists are filing lawsuits, insisting that "every group include people who disagree with the group's belief system" and I asked for examples other than the BSA.

That's something we don't agree on because I don't think atheists are insisting that every group include them. I mean, it's possible (and I wouldn't be all that surprised if it's true) that some atheist somewhere is saying that, and possibly even filing some lawsuits (which I'm assuming aren't getting anywhere), but I've never known any atheist like that, and I find it hard to believe that there are enough of them to have any meaningful impact. But if you can provide me with more examples, then I'll accept that I'm wrong about that, and then try to find them and tell them that they're wrong and that they need to stop.

Atheists have a more militant and confrontational attitude these years. I saw a booklet titled something like 'How to Attack Clusters of Spirituality' that was a practical how-to guide for atheists intolerant of people of faith.

I think that in the long run the political goal of making the U.S.A. some sort of proselytizer of atheism will work out badly. Its better to have tolerance for religion and any sort of philosophical point of view as freedom of intellect. That's a step in the right direction away from authoritarianism, tribalism, globalism and a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yep. They are definitely intolerant, but not of people of all faiths. They do seem to embrace Muslims.

"militant" would indicate that we are violent and combative. Have not seen any "violent atheist" protests these days...

I believe that's because they are anti-Christian and have the goal of weakening Christian America in the same way the Obama administration seeks to weaken Iran and the Shia by supporting Sunni revolutionary movements from Libya to Syria. Because the atheists have an evolutionary conceit that they are intellectually more advanced than the faithful like Lenin and the Bolsheviks any sort of dissimulation and treachery is hunkie dorrie for them.

It's all a sad direction to travel and very non-progressive. Philosophically speaking, the Universe is far more complex and deeper than the steady state structure of phenomenal evolution supported by quantum entanglement.

Which is a little confusing. Christians may hope to convert them, but they would never try to force them. Sharia is, however, very strict compliance enforcement. Go figure. Gotta think they are more afraid Christianity could be true. By trying to stamp it out, they seek to kill consciences that are a part of their very being. People seek drugs, sex, adrenaline, etc, etc, etc; but what they really want is God. It's built in.

Militant has many meanings, Vociferously active and aggressive is simply one. American atheists needn't be like the Khymer Rouge or Stalinists to be regarded as militant. In fact 'the church militant' did not refer to church militarization.

The Ecclesia Militans for instance is the church militant struggle of Christians on Earth against demonic spiritual forces and others that presecute the church. The Church Triumphant is comprised of those that are in heaven.

Atheists these decades seem to be in a struggle to assert their beliefs globally.

"Xyz is speaking up because they are afraid of Xyz" is an irrelevant and baseless comment that can be applied to the comments being made here as well.

You feel the need to continuously attack atheism and comment on these posts, argue and devoutly deny the facts because you are afraid of atheists and atheism.

@Gary - so winning lawsuits and filing complaints is construed as "militant"

Interesting... "logic .... you have there.

Women were called 'militant' when they fought for their rights, and gays have been called militant too.. blacks in the civil rights era were called militant of those with the same mentalities as today... go figure.

knowing facts isn't Char's strong suit, Rumple, you've gotta overlook most of what she says as it's nonsense.

I thought the point is the excuse the restaurant used was to bring in business during the Sunday "lull"...in that case, why not just offer a ten percent discount during certain hours on Sunday? Oh - forgot - maybe they only wanted Christians during those hours!

Exactly, Jeanne.

Oh but damn those intolerant atheists for bringing attention to it. They are so MILITANT for filing a complaint via the proper bureaucratic channels.

You guys are sure protesting much. Must have hit a nerve. It is interesting you responded with only ad hominem attacks. I thought you might have a real reason that atheists couldn't just boycott the restaurant owner. I personally just wouldn't go where I wasn't wanted. For that matter, the owner never even didn't want to serve them, they just weren't part of his Christian family. So what, he might also give discounts to all graduates, or what about senior citizen discounts??? Shouldn't all 20 something's sue him? I think atheists get the stink prize for this sour grapes persecution of a shopkeeper. Say whatever you want to or about me, I am done here. You are a mess, guys. I really feel sorry for your petty little empty hearts.

What's ad hominem about repeating the comments made here almost verbatim unless you admit that their comments are ad homien?

I think you mean mocking -- which isn't the same as making an ad hominem attack. Big diff actually.



Glad to know what "you would just do" in this situation, but expecting others to "lay down and take it" is out of the question IMHO. I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way you feel but about women when they wanted to vote, or wanted the right to work. It's a type of logic that operates on disregarding the humanity of another group of people.


I wonder how you'd feel if this restaurant was only offering discounts to muslims -- and if it was in your neighborhood.

Kentucky also has one of the lowest average IQs in the country at 92, with one of the higher ends of teen pregnancy rates along with the lowest availability of contraceptives and contraceptive education. Kentucky is also one of the states with a crime rate that correlates to a lack of education and lack of funding for poor areas.

in other words Kentucky can have its basketball.. there's probably little else to do when your IQ can't pass above a "dull average" and everyone at your middle school graduation is pregnant...

How does one assume "professionalism" over social network blogging (this is a social blog website, after all ) ?

Rumple -- Adam is just a little weird and childish, bringing up family names and cracking wise at me as well as leaving childish remarks on crime related posts.

Proving the statistics about Kentucky right, nothing more.

"the humor of a madman" -- if you act as erratically in real life as you do here on Gather, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if you had some kind of arrest record. No offense. But it is unsettling how .... nonsensical some of your posts come out sounding...

None of us can keep our religion or lack of religion out of our personal lives. What we believe or don't believe makes up our personal lives. Our founders guaranteed that we didn't have to keep our beliefs out of our personal, our business or our government lives. They guaranteed us that we could practice our faith or lack thereof.

And, Chelsea, don't forget that it was Republicans who were FOR civil rights and women's suffrage. Not Democrats. They fought both.

Trying to compare the republicans of the 1950s and 60s to the maniacs that can't even beat the "socialist muslim" that's in office is like comparing apples to pears. Only slightly similar.

Not ALL republicans were for the civil rights movement -- to act as though they were would be being dishonest.

Also, there are plenty of atheist republicans who are on the same side as American Atheists and FFRF. Isnt that something? ;)

The majority of Republicans were for civil rights and the majority of Democrats were not. For over 100 years, including when the civil rights law finally passed.

Yes, and there are black and gay Republicans too. :) And lots of women who understand that Republicans don't care to control a woman's lady parts.

Not much has changed for Democrats since the 50s and 60s except that they're much more out in the open now about being progressives.

Gary C. Gibson Nov 29, 2012, 6:36pm EST
Atheists have a more militant and confrontational attitude these years.

Chelsea Hoffman Nov 29, 2012, 6:43pm EST
"militant" would indicate that we are violent and combative. Have not seen any "violent atheist" protests these days...

...now, even though you knew exactly what Gary meant, you stretched the meaning in order to dismiss what he was saying. Because further down, you show that you knew exactly what he meant, because you use it to try to make YOUR point.

Chelsea Hoffman Nov 29, 2012, 6:52pm EST
Women were called 'militant' when they fought for their rights, and gays have been called militant too.. blacks in the civil rights era were called militant of those with the same mentalities as today... go figure.

You ARE combative.

atheists fight their causes through lawsuits and legal governmental channels

christians bomb abortion clinics, murder abortion doctors in churches, burn down mosques and protest fallen soldiers' funerals...


Who's militant, again?

This seems pretty militant to me too..... shine jesus shine..

Christians may hope to convert them, but they would never try to force them.

Tell that to the people who died in the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.

uh Rumpled Stickman, this is 2012

Christians have a very long history of being militant to the point of blood shed. ;)

atheists fight their causes through lawsuits and legal governmental channels

christians bomb abortion clinics, murder abortion doctors in churches, burn down mosques and protest fallen soldiers' funerals...

Who's militant, again?

...and atheist communists murder by the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

...Who's militant, again?

...and just what do you think is in America's atheist communist future? One big picnic?

I thought we were talking about 2012, or does that only apply to christians -- who continue to bomb abortion clinics, murder doctors, etc etc?

Yes, this is 2012, do you know who your president is?

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said.

Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”

With regard to those Americans who might refuse to embrace communism, Ayers and his comrades -- including Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, Linda Evans, Jeff Jones, and numerous others -- proposed that such resisters should be sent to reeducation camps and killed. The terrorists estimated that it would be necessary to eliminate some 25 million people in this fashion, so as to advance the revolution.

...this man, Bill Ayers, is a good friend of Obama. He organized Obama's first political fundraiser. Are you naive, blind, a "useful idiot" or what?

"Actually E-40 didn't invent this slang either, it was Frankie Smith and the Gap Band."

Wow, I LOVE The Gap Band~saw them in concert way back when & still have several LP's (vinyl). Actually, I revere this band..."You dropped a bomb on me, baby!"

Opinion:

What does your blathering rant about communism have to do with anything? Our President is a Christian. I don't care about who Bill Ayers is.

You're being illogical, but that's okay. You and August Lady should talk about what you guys have in common ;)

(maybe you can plot burning crosses in the yards of atheists to run them out of your communities or something...)

I have no problems with atheists, gf, just the way they go about "establishing" themselves, by doing what they don't want done to them~that's the problem, bottom line.

I have no problems with "gays/blacks/women/atheists", gf, just the way they go about "establishing" themselves, by doing what they don't want done to them~that's the problem, bottom line.


See how messed up intolerance looks?

Like picking on this li'l bitty small business~OK, they got li'l bitty attention. But, think of what would happen if they took on a major corporation...see what I'm saying?

And, you misquoted me~gays, blacks & women has never been about religion, per se. It's like apples & oranges, not even in the same ballpark (sorry for the cliches, but it's late)...

They were discriminated against, filed a complaint and the PHRC sided with them and ruled that the restaurant was in violation of a law.

So expecting law breakers to stop breaking the law is "picking on them?" This is exactly what I'm talking about with bigotry showing through your posts. You're treating the discrimination of a group of people like the victims are the ones who are picking on those who committed the unlawful act. This is the same thing as when someone blames a woman for being raped.

*facepalm*

I seriously can't believe you're such a hypocrite for being one of the more politically educated people in this community. Victim-blaming is deplorable NO MATTER WHO THE VICTIM IS. Period.

And, you misquoted me~gays, blacks & women has never been about religion, per se. It's like apples & oranges, not even in the same ballpark (sorry for the cliches, but it's late)...


No, I didn't misquote you. You're just further proving the point that you're delegating which minority group is "important" based on your own biases.

So by your logic, what you've stated, is this group of atheists (a whole group of people who felt discriminated against) are "bullies" and are "in the wrong" for turning in someone for violating a law that was set in place in their area.

Some women are bullied for turning in their rapists and abusers, some people are publicly chastised for reporting crimes that were "none of their business" -- what is it with this culture of victim blaming that we live in, where the people who are breaking laws are treated with more compassion than the victims of their crimes?

I'll leave you with that for the night. It is late, and I'd much rather play Skyrim right now than continue trying to convey how insulting it is that such intolerance against a group of people still exists among those who "claim" to be tolerant liberals.

I sure hope that if you ever have to report a crime, you're not called a bully or an A##hole for reporting it. But maybe if that does happen, you'll think back on this and how you pretty much proved the entire point that intolerant people think lesser of those who are victimized when they represent a group you don't like.

"I seriously can't believe you're such a hypocrite for being one of the more politically educated people in this community."

Sorry you feel that way...but, you don't have kids yet, right? Well, when you do, you'll get plenty of advice, esp. this, "Pick your battles!" As a mom, I fully understand the meaning of that~so, that's what I'm saying with emphasis, "Pick your battles...wisely!"

Sorry you feel that way...but, you don't have kids yet, right? Well, when you do, you'll get plenty of advice, esp. this, "Pick your battles!" As a mom, I fully understand the meaning of that~so, that's what I'm saying with emphasis, "Pick your battles...wisely!"


And this statement is still similar to what women, blacks and gays have been told.


Like I said before, when only people like Opinion Nate Ted are supporting what you're saying, that should tell you something....

P.s. -- referring to an oppressed "religious minority group" (even though atheism isn't a religion" as children and using the same acknowledgement toward the issue as if you're the "mother" and this group the "child" further shows your bigotry on the matter. You're putting yourself up on a pedestal of authority over a group of oppressed people who reported a legal violation and won -- while still trying denigrate the seriousness of the oppression we have actually known throughout time.

This is beginning to remind me of explaining to my grandparents why calling black people the 'n' word is racist when they're so out of touch and culturally anorexic that they truly do not understand that they're being intolerant against a group of people..... When you truly believe that a group is "less than" and are brainwashed and brought up to believe this, you're not going to understand how wrong you actually are no matter how much someone tries to educate you on how socially intolerant you're being.

And that is a shame, but I can understand that. Folksy racism applies to this as well.

State atheists have a history of extreme violence to enforce their idea that 'the churches don't work anymore'. The 20th century was one in which the Soviet Communist Union violently depleted most Christian social liberties with the power of death. That official atheist state brought about the deaths of more than 20 million Russians in their effort to cleanse the state of spirituality and other organizational phenomenalities that might be in opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communist China today continues the violent persecution of Christians.

What does all of this blathering have to do with atheists in America expecting businesses and government funded establishments to OBEY THE LAW?


going off on tangents doesn't prove your case any at all, it just shows that you have no argument.

Atheists filing lawsuit and winning (fair and square) in court = militant behavior

Christians protesting soldiers funerals, burning down abortion clinics, beating children, making violent threats against others, etc etc = religious expression


....... explains some of the recent studies about IQ to be honest with ya

anyway, I'm bored of this.. I am interviewing a guest blogger for my site right now, so I gotta go

Atheist militancy is trans-national as is business these days. The Internet has enabled global atheist powers of expression and organization that may run counter to U.S. national interests-itself a controversial topic with the left and right that each seem to be globalists rather than nationalists.

Logic has a class of particulars and universals and one finds that some court cases are particular decisions with potential universal representation. An obvious example was Clarence Darrow's search for a good case to try religious teaching an creationism on finding one finally in Tennessee in the Scopes trial.

One must be concerned when the expansion of fair legislation in one area goes too far. The Supreme Court often enough hears cases that refine the application of various broader laws such as the right to own guns.

Laws subject to judicial review and emergent applications of legal theory to macro-social establishment concern those affected. U.S. citizens commonly concern themselves with legal decisions that affect classes of citizens and others. The Supreme Court of the United States today had to make a decision to choose to hear the attack on the California Defense of Marriage Act or not-on Global AIDS Day ironically.

Incidentally I haven't 'a case to prove'. I have simply recounted some historical facts regarding atheism and its increase in the United States.

P.s. -- I don't know one atheist that is more tolerant of muslims than xtians -- I personally find your religions to be no different. In fact, if you look at most atheist and antitheist facebook pages you'll see some pretty offensive memes against islam equal to if not more than xtianity

@Gary C.

You've only managed to say a bunch of words without saying anything to substantiate your arguments.

Try again. You're losing.

The issue is simple and can be expressed in set theory terms Chelsea.

The Civil right's acts enumerated elements that one may not use as a basis for discrimination (such as discrimination race, color, religion, or national origin) can be regard for-themselves as Universals A,B,C & D. One may not form a set using A,B,C or D as the basis for discrimination positively or negatively. That is, one cannot exclude Christian or others of faith, require them to sit at the back of the bus while non-Christians ride up front and so forth.

It is allright to form a set to provide special access to goods and services if that set does not include the Universals A,B,C or D in it as test condition disjunctives.

The court probably failed to clarify what valid elements are that can be used to form a set for special business benefits and that didn't help at all, and may have fired up some godless atheists to expand their anti-Christian acts.

The restaurant owner could offer a 20% discount to anyone bringing in a bulletin from a Sunday meeting perhaps, as any organization can meet on a Sunday without violating the set C.R.A. The restaurant owner probably would like the business of N.A.S.C.A.R. Sunday patrons with a program that showed they attended yet of course he might dispute that they were members of an organizations that has a bulletin on Sundays.

It's their business. They have every right to offer discounts to people who went to church. They also have the right to offer discounts to anyone who played golf or who wore red clothes.

Our founding fathers gave us a country that is free to worship as we see fit and free to fellowship, as well free to speak about our faith - at work, at school, and at play. You're free to speak of your non-faith as well. And you're free to open up a restaurant and give discounts to those who attend secular humanist and atheist meetings - which are now being held, in some places weekly.

Umm... See below on public accomodations and the Civil Rights Act. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal.

Rumple, try reading the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress is not allowed to make a law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Being a Christian is a personal relationship with Christ. No one can take that from us. Christ comes with us wherever we go - at home, at school and work, in the government. Just like being an atheist goes everywhere with an atheist. They don't just practice at home. They practice everywhere. And they try to make everyone else practice what they practice. That is against the first amendment.

So you get decide where and when? Nope. That's not what the founders designed for us. Remember? Jefferson organized and attended worship services in government buildings, and arranged for the Marine band to play. One would think that he understood what the founding documents said and what he meant by "wall of separation of church and state" when he used the phrase in a letter to a church reassuring them that no one was going to take away our freedoms and that no government was going to insist on us attending one kind of church over another.

Does an atheist leave his/her atheism at home? Obviously not, nor would any person of faith ask him/her to do so. Now if only the same consideration was given to persons of faith we'd be in the country our forefathers designed for us.

*facepalm*


(have you ever noticed how impromptu constitution experts like Marilyn M. and her ilk aren't the ones winning these complaints, lawsuits and other endeavors that are ruled on by actually educated people? Yeah... me too... :) )

Not because we're wrong, Chelsea.

Actually, yes, it is because you're wrong. But if you need to tell yourself whatever "everyone gets a ribbon" type of story to soothe the burn, go for it.

Educated people rule on constitutional matters -- and there's a reason for that. THANKFULLY. Go to school on this topic for about a decade and then get back to me about how you're not wrong ;)

byeeee

The interesting thing here is that the real question has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It's the 14th that's in play.

Chelsea, it doesn't say the establishment is just for Christians. Do you also object to senior discounts? Or discounts to kids who get good grades?

The difference is that the senior discount etc. aren't based on religion. Religion is one of the areas to which the Civil Rights Act specifically applies.

Thanks, Nippy, for being the voice of reason.

There's a boob joke in there somewhere. xD

None of these underhanded remarks change the fact that this is a win for atheism either way; just sayin

...yes, it's a "win" for atheism. The atheists picked a fight and they won.

The restaurant that violated a discrimination regulation picked the fight -- and lost.

Intolerance of business discounts that exclude none is a dubious area for court action. If one wants to give a 10% discount to old people (over 50 to the Obama clan?) on bus passes is that discriminatory?

Should businesses be free to give 10% off to combat veterans on outdoor equipment? Ought behaviors be given discounts or should prisoners get time off for 'good behavior'.

How can state governments give merit increases to people with good conduct and attendance without discriminating against those that are habitually tardy and drink on the job? Is that fair?

If anyone can attend a Christian church and get a bulletin how is that discriminatory? Negroes/Blacks/Afro-Americans don't choose to be black some morning and remain that way until they are converted to whiteness through atheist genetic re-engineering. Behaviors can be changed but some things are natural and cannot.

@Gary -- if you're unfamiliar with business law in the state of Penn. and the laws regarding discrimination, then maybe you should reserve your opinions until you educate yourself on said topic?

The U.S. Constitution is what is used by the left as the final opinion (The Supreme Court) on the application of civil rights legislation in the states. One needn't be a legal expert to be concerned about business freedom in any state and the curtailment of that liberty.

so it's okay for a business to discriminate and break the law?


as for your comments about "anyone can attend a christian church, how is this discriminatory" -- you're obviously not paying attention, and you're clearly showing your biases which means your argument is full of holes.

The concern about the application of the laws correctly and the effort to write good law is the effort of an ongoing perfection of democracy.

Of course I am a Christian. Writing in support of something one supports is the purpose of rational government rather than its contravention. Free people are free to prefer a society that supports their own interests.

Would you believe that only those against of abortion should work as advocates for it?

Of course I am a Christian. Writing in support of something one supports is the purpose of rational government rather than its contravention. Free people are free to prefer a society that supports their own interests.


And therein lies your bias and inability to form a reasonable argument. Because this is truly not a religious issue. It's a political issue, and we live in a country that is secular right down to the writings of our founding fathers. There are christians who appeared in support of the atheist group who complained because not all christians are so ignorantly biased that they think it's okay for people of their faith to break the laws of the land just because they're a certain religion. This could apply to many situations in which more than just atheists would have been discriminated against.

So you've pretty much established, like at least two other posters here, that it's essentially okay for "christians" to break laws, because they're christian and since you too are christian, you're going to support their criminal behavior.

By this same logic you must think it's okay when people are murdered in the name of christianity as well...?

If you think about it, they should put coupons in the bulletins. If the people get a coupon, they get the discount.

It would be in "church" bulletins. Would that be OK?

Char, that's exactly what I thought they should do.

"Basic religious tolerance."

I find atheists just as intolerant of "believers'" views~all the fuss they make when they want something that "offends" them taken down.

Yup, they're so intolerant for wanting governments to follow the constitution and for wanting to have equal liberties and acceptance. Damn them all to imaginary heck. If they want tolerance they should be christian!

I didn't say that, but whenever there's an issue, it's like 1 person who's rights supercedes everybody else's (like that HS twit). Movements are formed by more than groups of 1; causes are won by a group of people getting together for the greater good, not for selfish, hateful reasons.

So was the women's right's movement hateful? or Gay rights?

fighting against religious theocratical oppression in a secular constitutional republic is far from hateful.


p.s. -- in the united states NOBODY'S rights should supersede another person's rights.

No, & I knew you were going to hit back with those...were there haters, yeah, but it wasn't the driving force of either movement & that's the difference. Plus, there's plenty of evidence that their rights were being infringed upon~I live thru the women's movement, you didn't!

"fighting against religious theocratical oppression in a secular constitutional republic is far from hateful."

The way the atheist movement goes about it presently, yeah, it is!

A lot of people back then probably didn't think women's rights were as equal at the time of civil rights for blacks, too I'm sure.

There is equal proof of religious oppression now as there has been against women, gays, ethnic minorities pretty much every other group that's been discriminated against.


So you think it's hateful to file formal complaints with ethics and legal commissions that lead to them judging rightfully in favor of they who filed the paper work? That's hateful? And here I was thinking that the burning of women at stakes due to the imaginary belief that they were "witches" was hateful...and I really thought it was "hateful" when angry christians trashed and criminally vandalized a recent holiday display in california that was erected by an atheist.... but I assume you're going to say the atheist was hateful for simply putting the display up in the first place...


Kind of like how women who wear short skirts should expect to be raped, right?

Now you're way out there Chels, & I got better things to do...

What's way out there about pointing out the logical holes you're creating out of this?

This is a civil rights issue, but like those on the far right who hate gays, women and minorities you're disregarding the oppression of actually millions of Americans.

but hiding behind religious intolerance, yet pretending to be completely unaware of just how similar you're being to the likes of those who don't want homosexuals to have equal rights, or women to have equal pay...

You may not see it that way, but you really, truly are displaying this very same mentality. It's the same mentality that blames women for rape, keeps minorities down and keeps women silent about their rights. Only it's being expressed about a minority of non-religious people.

It's the same mentality that blames women for rape, keeps minorities down and keeps women silent about their rights. Only it's being expressed about a minority of non-religious people.

Now you're really out there & I'm not even going to deny it because it's utterly ludicrous! I didn't come here for an argument~I offered an opinion with some valid points, or so I thought! I call it like I see it, Chelsea~it's as simple as that!!!

"I call it like I see it" -- and your vision is nowhere near 20/20. No offense.

You have blatantly stated throughout this discussion that women's rights movement and the other civil rights movements are more valid than a group of over 3 million oppressed Americans. That makes you intolerant. You have stated throughout this thread that atheists have brought their oppression on themselves without so much as even inquiring about hte facts of the matter. That is the same thing as saying women deserved to not have their rights and that's the same mentality as saying victims of hate crimes (of any type) deserve it because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or what-have-you.

You put on the mask of a tolerant liberal here on Gather, but that only applies to certain groups, which in and of itself is hypocritical to the point that you have completely disregarded and negated the liberties, rights and oppressive past of an entire group of human beings -- This behavior that you're displaying is no better than the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle and the lot of those who look down their noses at entire groups of people.

I'm not going to tell you what you can and cannot call yourself, but for certain you are intolerant and that is something that I do not associate with liberal Americans who are accepting of others and who strive for equal rights and acknowledgement of civil liberties for all.

Liberals want equal rights for all Americans, not just those who believe in deities, August Lady, and your intolerant statements about over 3 million americans while telling ME that "I am out there" for calling you out on it, is enough to show what your true personality is, and it's no better than the likes of those who hate blacks, gays, women and other groups.


and you wrap your intolerance up in the very same neat bow that they do "hey, it's my opinion! (that this entire minority group of 3 million americans aren't important!"

p.s. No offense.. I was just "sharing my opinion."


Wouldn't want you to think that someone from a minority group you evidently have bias against is purposely trying to offend. Might be laws against that, and it would be my fault because my rights don't matter as much as yours.

You have blatantly stated throughout this discussion that women's rights movement and the other civil rights movements are more valid than a group of over 3 million oppressed Americans.

I don't call it blatant, it's just my f'n opinion, Chels! OK, 3 mil Americans, and where are you being friggin' oppressed?!!? Do you not have the right to hate God? Do you not have the right to express that hate? Do you not have the right to challenge Christian religious displays be taken down, AND, they HABE been taken down??? Where's the friggin' oppression, Chels, where?!!? Plus, you're going about it all wrong~you, moreso atheists, criticize Christians every chance they get, they demand that Christians not practice their religion within their view(tolerance, BABY!), they create battles to be fought instead of trying to change the ones inherent in the system. Don't argue with me~argue with the power people that can really do something! The women's movement & the gay rights movement weren't playing on Gather~they were friggin' knocking on every lawmakers' doors, holding meetings, marching in DC, and refining & spreading their messages, not picking picayune fights!

excuse me. Your opinion is blatantly intolerant toward a minority group of 3 million people. My bad.

There is a difference between being criticized and being oppressed. Anytime someone takes on the system people like you make statements that are nearly the same exact statements bigots made in the civil rights movements against blacks, womens and gays.

It's oppression to expect an entire group of people to lay down and allow a public facility to break a constitutional law ( such as the high school in RI, or religious displays on taxpayer land)

When my tax money is being used to fund religious symbolism it is not only illegal, but it oppresses me and and my liberties along with the liberties of every other person who is funding religious symbolism and sentiment that they do not believe in or want to endorse. Do you want to pay taxes to fund muslim or satanist or wiccan or hindu religious displays? Do you want your taxes to pay for the displays of muslim, wiccan, or satanist prayers in your public schools? It's the same damn concept and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what oppression atheists face on a daily basis in this country and in others.

This is not 'atheists throwing a fit and pissing people off' -- it's expecting that the laws be followed and respected. On the other hand it appears that you're trying to say that the person who reports the crime is the bad guy and not the people who are violating the crimes in the first place.

Why? Because you're very obviously religiously biased, which brings me back to my point that you're only tolerant of groups that don't impose on your religions bias, which makes you intolerant. I'm sorry, your "opinion."

Didn't bother me, Chelsea?

http://www.alternet.org/belief/year-jail-not-believing-god-how-kentucky-persecuting-atheists

A Year in Jail for Not Believing in God? How Kentucky Is Persecuting Atheists
In Kentucky, a homeland security law requires the state’s citizens to acknowledge the security provided by the Almighty God--or risk 12 months in prison.

OK, here's the deal. A restaurant is a "public accomodation" under the law. It's subject to anti-discrimination laws. The interesting question is whether the church newsletter discount is more like a discount for members of a club or it's more like a discount for caucasians of northern European ancestry (obviously genealogical proof would be required.) I'm inclined toward the latter. It's one of those seemingly picayune questions that helps define the First Amendment. We have to remember that where the First Amendment is concerned it's the offensive stuff and the stuff that seems silly that define the boundaries. The big stuff is pretty obvious.

And when is discrimination of a Christian considered discrimination?

When the rights of 1(uno) atheist supercedes the right of everybody else!

Name a case in which christians were discriminated

http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/headline-news/headline-news/obamas-stimulus-discriminates-against-christians.html

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/discrimination-against-christians-dont-even-ask/

"And when is discrimination of a Christian considered discrimination?"

When they're discriminated against.

One of your sources is out of the UK, which is not a constitutional republic -- it has an official religion. We're in the US.


One of your sources misrepresents a stimulus bill while disregarding that had they allowed these renovations, they would be in violation of federal laws.

Next?



Maybe I should be clear:


Can you produce cases of the united states government or any state government itself violating discrimination laws against christianity that is not a story of a person suing another person (everyone sues everyone) and that is actually truthful and not misleading?

How about the crap that is being put in textbooks that teach Jesus was a Muslim, while criticizing Christianity and Judaism? Or what about the teacher in public schools teaches the Muslim belief but can not teach Christian belief......
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/us_public_schools_teaching_chi_1.html

Did you even bother reading the sources you're sharing @Mooch.


This is starting to get sad.....

yeap....and I stand by what I say, but you and your liberal mind won't or can not comprehend what I believe.....good bye on this conversation

I can't comprehend what you "believe" because what you believe appears to be based on misinformation and a lack of facts.


My "liberal mind" is more interested in facts.. credible ones.. care to share any or is that too hard for you?

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7281/pub_detail.asp

So she's being sued -- and your point? Is it okay for christians to sue over discrimination, but not atheists? Is that what you're driving at? :)

lol no joke

My point is we get chastized, and our belief even in the current administration, discriminates against Christians, discrimination is discrimination, and I'm fed up with it. didn't say it was right, I was pointing out discrimination is discrimination. Doesn't matter when or where it happens, people just chose to close a blind eye to discrimination against Christians.....
Suing a photographer because he refuses to shoot a gay wedding is discrimination against Christianity. A person has a Chrisitian based business and can't choose the work he wants to accept or deny based on his religious faith, well that's discrimination.
How about forcing people to pay tax funded abortions against their beliefs, that's discrimination based on my faith.
How about telling a faith, Catholics, that they have to provide birth control because it 'law', that's discrimination against beliefs....I can go on and on......Sorry but I didn't say discrimination against an Atheist was wrong, I just stated that Christians get discriminated against, and most dont' think its discrimnation, you totally missed the point, if htey want to sue that's their right. but I do not ask them to think like I do, and I don't expect them to force their lack of belief in God on me.

@August Lady -- can you name one time, with actual credible sources and knowledge of the matter, that "one atheists rights superseded everyone else's" ??

I mentioned 1 already~that high schooler in Rhode Island & there are others I can't rattle off the top of my head right now. I'm working on a post right now, so I'll to a bit of research later...

Oh you're talking about cranson high school and the prayer banner -- the prayer banner was illegal. If it was a muslim banner, more people would have been outraged. Just because the one person who had the courage to stand up and speak out was an atheist doesn't mean that this was "for one atheist" -- there are many atheist students at the school and in that town who didn't speak up. She chose to. It also wasn't "for" anyone. Reporting constitutional violations is the duty of every US citizen FOR every us citizen.

Do you think rape should be legal if nobody else cares about the victim?

"If it was a muslim banner, more people would have been outraged."

Well geez, Chels, when's the last time you checked...Muslim isn't the predominant religion in the good ol' U S of A!

AND, you're gonna have to excuse me on this one, but rape has nothing to do with friggin' Atheism!

Okay, do you see where you're proving my point?

*facepalm*

That's the point. You're a member of the "predominant" religion in the U.S., so of course you're not going to care about the minorities who are oppressed by the overly christianization of the u.s. government when our founding fathers and several documents penned by them indicate that this is a secular government and our constitution has some pretty bold wording about this as well. You're a christian so of course you're going to sit in your ivory tower and look down at the atheist minority group and say "you're only making your own oppression because you piss people off" by "talking back" and protesting things that we feel violate our liberties as Americans who want the government to stay true to its fundamental principles regarding religion.

But if the predominant religion in the U.S. was muslim, you would be a minority as a christian, and maybe THEN you'd feel what it feels like to go into a public school that your tax dollars pay for and see an ILLEGALLY PLACED muslim prayer banner.

Or are you still unable to grasp this simple point? The fact that you made this comment only further proved my point that you simply just don't understand, acknowledge or care about the problem BECAUSE you are christian and you believe that this is okay because christians are the majority --

which, btw, is something else that is ANTI liberal.

"rape has nothing to do with atheism" --

No, but treating a woman like what happened to her isn't a crime because she's a woman and doesn't matter is the same type of argument you employed toward atheism.

I think I worded that pretty expressly.

LOL, this one made me laugh. Poor fellow, he probably didn't know what kind of "can of worms" he was opening when he thought he was making a shrewd business move. Being politically correct now days can be tricky. LOL! That's sort of like offering a discount on diapers to pregnant ladies only, never thinking about the poor future papa who would like to get in on the discount. LOL! Hey, I think I'm going to sue the Masonic Lodge because they discriminate against women ..... okay, they do offer the Eastern Star as a consolation lodge for the ladies but they maintain complete control of it and you still can't join their secret lodge .... I wanta be a Mason. Can I sue? Uhhhhh, this was all said in jest, I have no desire to associate with these bigots or country clubs that hold to the same standards. We live in a bigoted world. Women have been discriminated against since Eve ate the apple and we're still fighting for equal pay for equal work .... I know, I know, laws have been passed but mostly they are ignored, in my opinion that's why most companies have rules against discussing your salary with other company personnel. I digress .... so I'll say "good for them" for pointing out this mistake and it's one that I would never have paid any attention to if it were not pointed out to me that this is discrimination .... and it is .... and it's a shame that someone has to point it out to me.

Ms. Lee, I got too involved up above, but I agree with most of your comments~very well-stated!

Ms Lee at my husbands job everyone know what everyone else makes per hour, it is listed next to their names on a list that everyone can see. They are union so maybe that is why.

I believe as long as they don't say atheists not allowed then they are doing things right. It would be no different if you had to have a certain coupon from a certain paper, and some might have it and some might not. You would not expect them to give that discount to everyone, just as they should not have to give discounts to those who don't abide by the discount offerings.

Right. People get AAA and AARP discounts all the time. Should we all complain? No. Join AAA or AARP. And like I said below, if you want the Sunday discount, pop into a church and get a bulletin and leave.

agreed

"I believe as long as they don't say atheists not allowed then they are doing things right."

The law says otherwise. The Civil Rights Act says that people are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, etc. of a place of public accommodation, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

The restaurant owners were clearly violating that law, just as they would if they offered a discount to Catholics but not to Jews, or to black people but not Asian people.

if there is a AAA discount you can not get if you do not have AAA, I stand firm on this the same if they asked for a atheist remark to get a discount, if you don't know one you don't get a discount.

I use coupons to save money each time I shop, not everyone can get the same deals as I can if they don't have the coupons.

AAA discounts don't break the law, as long as membership in AAA isn't based on race, color, religion or national origin.

Wil, anyone is welcome in the restaurant. And if you want the discount, get a church bulletin. I'll bet there are some in the dumpsters around the churches.

Marilyn -- the issue was already ruled on in favor of the complainant.

It was an illegal violation of civil rights codes. The end. We won. You lost. Here's a tissue.

No, Chelsea, it's not a violation. If only you could see that wrong rulings by the court will one day bite your butt too one day.

Just because you can't intellectually grasp and interpret the constitution properly doesn't mean a ruling is "wrong."

The ruling is that it was a violation. End of story. Like I said in another topic, go to college for this topic for a few yrs and get back to me.

:)

erh I mean constitution and laws in different areas of practice

Marilyn, the law goes beyond merely letting people in without discriminating. It also requires that they receive equal enjoyment, without discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Insisting that non-churchgoers could go dumpster diving to retrieve a church bulletin as an attempt to find a loophole in laws against illegal discrimination isn't going to work. The owners tried something similar, and it didn't work for them.

They can discriminate against people in their churches, in their homes, in their private clubs, etc. but they can't discriminate against people in places of public accommodation. They can't favor Christians over atheists, nor atheists over Christians. They can't expect atheists to find a church bulletin in order to get a discount, and they can't expect Christians to lie about their faith in order to void a surcharge. It's illegal discrimination, and its not going to bite me in the butt because I think people shouldn't be discriminated against in places of public accommodation.

It looks to me is that they only needed a bulletin to get the discount, if they wanted the discount enough they would have done what needed to be done to get it. I like to get discounts but if I don't get the coupons I can not expect to get the discount on what I want, that is just a fact.

No one is keeping atheists from going to the restaurant. And, they can certainly also get the same discount by going to church and bringing in a bulletin. Attending church doesn't make one a Christian any more than parking in a garage makes one a car. So, if you want the discount, stop into a church and pick up a bulletin and then leave. Pretty simple.

Is this the only restaurant in town?

Reminds me of the crazy people who didn't like the smoke in cigar bars so they made sure smoking was banned there. Why in the world did they want to be in a cigar bar if they didn't smoke?

If you don't like the policies of a business, don't go there. But don't deprive others of the discount because it doesn't apply to you. That's no different than getting mad because a restaurant gives out rewards to kids with A's because your kid got all B's.

This sort of thing is clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Pretty simple.

It would be equally illegal if the owners asked each customer if they worshiped Jesus as their lord and savior, and added 20% to their bill if they said "yes".

Sure, an argument could be made that people who believed such a thing could simply say "no" and not incur the extra charge, but the point of the law is that they shouldn't have to. Because they have a legal right to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, etc. of a place of public accommodation, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

I guess they should start collecting church bulletins, which by the way our church does not give out there is one for the whole congregation to read, no extras.

Wil, it's not a violation of anyone's civil rights.

"Wil, it's not a violation of anyone's civil rights."


Quick, Marilyn, contact the committee of experts who are educated on the laws and tell them that they're wrong so they can reverse their ruling. Nobody thought to ask you for your input and you are clearly the expert source of this type of thing... not the college educated officials who ruled in favor of the complainant.

Chelsea, the court has ruled wrongly quite a few times. This is one case where they did. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. As I said above, it's sad that you can't see that wrong court rulings will someday hurt you and yours as well. When freedoms are taken away from one group, it affects everyone eventually.

Again, just because you don't understand the constitution and just because you're not educated on certain law applications, doesn't mean a ruling is wrong. It means the ruling was right and you lack the educational background to completely understand that. Nothing more, nothing less.

P.s. -- with your logic, laws that make murder illegal infringe upon someone's freedom to murder lol. Like I said, leave these matters to the people who are actually educated on said matters.

Stamping your feet and saying "this wasn't a violation" doesn't make this violation any less of one. Just like you can't say dead means alive in hopes of changing the physical state of life. It's called logic.... and I think if you tried it, you might find that you like it.

"Wil, it's not a violation of anyone's civil rights."

Yes it did. It discriminated on the basis of religion, and that's illegal. Just like it would be illegal if the owners put a 20% surcharge for Christians, and tried to get around the law by saying that all Christians had to do was lie when asked about their religious beliefs/practices before they paid their bill.

If some restaurant wants to give 10% (or 90%) discounts to atheists, or Hindus, or Pagans with a limp, they ought to be able to do so, I say.