Restaraunt gives discount for praying

[Pogo]

Hey Windbag.....be honest.

Why did you start this thread?

Because I wanted to.

You must have missed his first line. Helpful tip: it said "be honest".
Everything anyone does is "because one wants to".

Squrim factor: 97.2

 

[Pogo]

I don't understand what you're freaking out about. Or why you're so hell bent on insulting me. The idea behind the hypothetical is just to gauge whether people are supporting the policy on the grounds of general freedom, or because they approve of prayer. They're two very different motivations.

But by all means, avoid addressing that and go on some moronic tirade about something else.

That's all she does here. As I told her yesterday that's why she'll always be second string; she's a miserable whiner whose only approach is ad hominem. It's like clockwork. Been that way as long as I've been here at least.

Check this out -- five posts in a row, from the previous page:

Anyone who thinks ...[strawman snipped] is a fucking moron.

Period.

Since you have piss for brains, I'm sure the sarcasm dripping off of that and puddling on your shoes will go right past you, and you will therefore be pleased as punch in the continuingly erroneous belief that your opinion on Christianity is of equal value to a fart in a wind tunnel.

Just a tip, loser: maybe people don't hate you for your atheism, "enlightened" or otherwise. Maybe they hate you because they're acquainted with you. Personally, I'd charge you an extra 15% just for the unforgivable offense of being yourself in public.

Consider yourself "enlightened", Sparkles.

Oh, by the way, you're still existing. You might want to fix that.

So what you're saying is that it was more than five years on the short bus? I'm sorry to hear that.

Sadly, she has to live with herself, which has to be worse than any poo we could fling back, so pity her.

And she's always really vicious and angry. She starts out full metal jacket, no warm up. I agree its sad. Best to just ignore her.

Also telling: two of those posts actually got thanked. That speaks volumes about the similar temperaments of the thankers. I can't imagine encouraging scurrilous ad hominem, even if I agreed with the sentiment.

Takes all kinds...

 

[dblack]

Should they be able to offer discounts if their patrons are white, for example?
Its discrimination no matter which way you look at it.

Yes, they should. And yes, it is.

That doesn't make sense. You're saying yes it's discrimination and yes they should be able to discriminate?

Noomi's example isn't quite the same thing. One's skin colour is not a choice.

It's still discrimination.

 

[dblack]

Should they be able to offer discounts if their patrons are white, for example?
Its discrimination no matter which way you look at it.

Yes, they should. And yes, it is.

That doesn't make sense. You're saying yes it's discrimination and yes they should be able to discriminate?

And yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. This issue shows why trying to outlaw it is a problem.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, they should. And yes, it is.

That doesn't make sense. You're saying yes it's discrimination and yes they should be able to discriminate?

And yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. This issue shows why trying to outlaw it is a problem.

So you're actually saying it would be cool do discriminate against black people?

Women? Asians? Indians? The lefthanded?

 

[dblack]

That doesn't make sense. You're saying yes it's discrimination and yes they should be able to discriminate?

And yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. This issue shows why trying to outlaw it is a problem.

So you're actually saying it would be cool do discriminate against black people?

Women? Asians? Indians? The lefthanded?

No.

 

[Pogo]

And yes, they should be allowed to discriminate. This issue shows why trying to outlaw it is a problem.

So you're actually saying it would be cool do discriminate against black people?

Women? Asians? Indians? The lefthanded?

No.

Did you not just post "they should be allowed to discriminate", in answer to "if their patrons are white"?

That would mean they would charge black people more.

 

[dblack]

So you're actually saying it would be cool do discriminate against black people?

Women? Asians? Indians? The lefthanded?

No.

Did you not just post "they should be allowed to discriminate", in answer to "if their patrons are white"?

That would mean they would charge black people more.

Yes, but that doesn't mean I think it would be cool. I certainly wouldn't support the practice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't see an issue as it is their restaurant, some offer discounts based on age, occupation, or affiliation to groups - that would have to end too if you restrict restaurants from running their own discount structure.

Should they be able to offer discounts if their patrons are white, for example?
Its discrimination no matter which way you look at it.

Tough shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Idiots get offended.

The debate over officials praying in government meetings has raged in the past few years, but one restaurant claims to be supporting the religious rights of individuals, by offering a discount for praying in public. While many find the move a positive thing, others say it’s religious discrimination, and that the practice should be stopped.
An image that shows a receipt including a 15% discount for praying in public has been going viral since an Orland, Florida radio station posted it yesterday. Z88.3 shared the image on its Facebook page, saying,

A friend of ours just shared her receipt from lunch where she got a discount for praying in public!!! How cool is that?
​

When some people expressed doubt that anyone anywhere was getting a discount for praying in public, even calling the image photoshopped, they were directed to a North Carolina restaurant, Mary’s Gourmet Diner. On that restaurant’s Facebook page, the rumor was confirmed:

Yes, if we see you praying, you get 15% off your bill.
​

While this produced a spate of support, it also returned some anger, and accusations of discrimination. One poster asked,

Just a question, because it has come up in some comments sections. Would a Muslim still enjoy a discount for praying at your restaurant? As a Christian. I would hope you are respectful of all religions that worship.
​

Restaurant's 'Praying In Public' Discount Returns Praise, Ire; Religious Freedom Or Discrimination?

Praying for money and charging more to atheists.

Well at least they're up front about it.

See what I mean about idiots getting offended?

Bueller?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Should they be able to offer discounts if their patrons are white, for example?
Its discrimination no matter which way you look at it.

Yes, they should. And yes, it is.

That doesn't make sense. You're saying yes it's discrimination and yes they should be able to discriminate?

Noomi's example isn't quite the same thing. One's skin colour is not a choice.

It doesn't make sense because you hate freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey Windbag.....be honest.

Why did you start this thread?

Because I wanted to.

You must have missed his first line. Helpful tip: it said "be honest".
Everything anyone does is "because one wants to".

Squrim factor: 97.2

How was it dishonest, oh he who can read minds while insisting no one can read minds?

 

[Pogo]

No.

Did you not just post "they should be allowed to discriminate", in answer to "if their patrons are white"?

That would mean they would charge black people more.

Yes, but that doesn't mean I think it would be cool. I certainly wouldn't support the practice.

So.... then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate after all?
Which is it?

Or are you saying they shouldn't discriminate, but that it should not be a law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's all she does here. As I told her yesterday that's why she'll always be second string; she's a miserable whiner whose only approach is ad hominem. It's like clockwork. Been that way as long as I've been here at least.

Check this out -- five posts in a row, from the previous page:











Sadly, she has to live with herself, which has to be worse than any poo we could fling back, so pity her.

And she's always really vicious and angry. She starts out full metal jacket, no warm up. I agree its sad. Best to just ignore her.

Also telling: two of those posts actually got thanked. That speaks volumes about the similar temperaments of the thankers. I can't imagine encouraging scurrilous ad hominem, even if I agreed with the sentiment.

Takes all kinds...

You are just upset that she is capable of shutting down your meager attempts to outsmart her, which is the same problem you have with me. Perhaps you should try learning to think instead of complaining about people that can actually do it.

 

[Pogo]

Because I wanted to.

You must have missed his first line. Helpful tip: it said "be honest".
Everything anyone does is "because one wants to".

Squrim factor: 97.2

How was it dishonest, oh he who can read minds while insisting no one can read minds?

I did not say "dishonest". And there you go again.
I don't need to read no minds, especially where none exist. I already know that "because I wanted to" isn't an answer that differentiates this from every "why did you" question ever asked in the history of time.

If I could read minds I wouldn't need an answer. I'd just post it. But this was supposed to be your job anyway.

I'm not all that interested in the answer. I just find it entertaining to watch you dance around avoiding it.

 

[dblack]

Did you not just post "they should be allowed to discriminate", in answer to "if their patrons are white"?

That would mean they would charge black people more.

Yes, but that doesn't mean I think it would be cool. I certainly wouldn't support the practice.

So.... then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate after all?
Which is it?

Or are you saying they shouldn't discriminate, but that it should not be a law?

The latter. There are lots of 'shoulds' in the world that would be wrong to try to enforce with laws. In fact, I'd argue that the vast majority of moral questions should not be a matter of law enforcement.

 

[Pogo]

And she's always really vicious and angry. She starts out full metal jacket, no warm up. I agree its sad. Best to just ignore her.

Also telling: two of those posts actually got thanked. That speaks volumes about the similar temperaments of the thankers. I can't imagine encouraging scurrilous ad hominem, even if I agreed with the sentiment.

Takes all kinds...

You are just upset that she is capable of shutting down your meager attempts to outsmart her, which is the same problem you have with me. Perhaps you should try learning to think instead of complaining about people that can actually do it.

"Upset"?

I pointed out her failure of thought and the consistency thereof. It was a post of reassurance to another poster who felt singled out, noting that it's simply the pattern Cecile applies universally, because she's not bright enough to think any deeper. Ad hominem doesn't "shut down" squat. It just makes the hominer look like a hominer.

And you're one of her thankers, which identifies you as one of the same miserable contrarian coots that uses the same crutch. Upset? Far from it. I pity both of you for your dearth of reasoning skills, not to mention having to live with that attitude eating y'all up from inside.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You must have missed his first line. Helpful tip: it said "be honest".
Everything anyone does is "because one wants to".

Squrim factor: 97.2

How was it dishonest, oh he who can read minds while insisting no one can read minds?

I did not say "dishonest". And there you go again.
I don't need to read no minds, especially where none exist. I already know that "because I wanted to" isn't an answer that differentiates this from every "why did you" question ever asked in the history of time.

If I could read minds I wouldn't need an answer. I'd just post it. But this was supposed to be your job anyway.

I'm not all that interested in the answer. I just find it entertaining to watch you dance around avoiding it.

It was 100% honest, yet you claim it isn't good enough because you think people are suffused with anger.

Tough fucking shit, asshole, that is my answer.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, but that doesn't mean I think it would be cool. I certainly wouldn't support the practice.

So.... then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate after all?
Which is it?

Or are you saying they shouldn't discriminate, but that it should not be a law?

The latter. There are lots of 'shoulds' in the world that would be wrong to try to enforce with laws. In fact, I'd argue that the vast majority of moral questions should not be a matter of law enforcement.

OK, so you're a true Liberal.

Thanks for that clarification. Good on ya, I don't think I could go that far. Knowing what I do about the South, I have a hard time seeing how racial discrimination left to its own devices would have petered out without the hand of law to force it down; it was simply too entrenched. It was in Greensboro, not far east of this restaurant, where four black students sat down to a lunch counter and were refused service because they were black (1960). We know about the demonstrations and riots and water cannons that soon followed; we can only speculate about how long that would have gone on without the force of law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Also telling: two of those posts actually got thanked. That speaks volumes about the similar temperaments of the thankers. I can't imagine encouraging scurrilous ad hominem, even if I agreed with the sentiment.

Takes all kinds...

You are just upset that she is capable of shutting down your meager attempts to outsmart her, which is the same problem you have with me. Perhaps you should try learning to think instead of complaining about people that can actually do it.

"Upset"?

I pointed out her failure of thought and the consistency thereof. It was a post of reassurance to another poster who felt singled out, noting that it's simply the pattern Cecile applies universally, because she's not bright enough to think any deeper. Ad hominem doesn't "shut down" squat. It just makes the hominer look like a hominer.

And you're one of her thankers, which identifies you as one of the same miserable contrarian coots that uses the same crutch. Upset? Far from it. I pity both of you for your dearth of reasoning skills, not to mention having to live with that attitude eating y'all up from inside.

You should be able to recognize a lack consistency and a failure of thought considering how often you are guilty of it yourself, but her mind is very consistent, and the fact that she expresses her contempt for idiots more openly than I do does not diminish it even slightly. If you don't believe me, call her out on something you think you understand and watch her treat your arguments to the same utter defeat that I have handed you multiple times.

By the way, how come you always run away when you lose the debate? Do you really think that by not admitting you lost it means that you won?