Restaraunt gives discount for praying

[dblack]

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.

That might make sense within the narrow context of remediating the effects of slavery. But the precedent it sets is problematic. I suspect we could have found ways to deal with racial bigotry that didn't involve throwing freedom of association under the bus.

Now we're saddled with a precedent that mandates bakers make cakes for gay weddings against their will.

 

[Pogo]

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.

That might make sense within the narrow context of remediating the effects of slavery. But the precedent it sets is problematic. I suspect we could have found ways to deal with racial bigotry that didn't involve throwing freedom of association under the bus.

Now we're saddled with a precedent that mandates bakers make cakes for gay weddings against their will.

Can you elaborate on the bold?

On the prior point, I agree we go too far when we try to social-engineer beyond basic human rights and public safety. Affirmative action for example. I just don't think the "colored" water fountains I saw with my own eyes would have gone away without a legal catalyst. And worse. Extend the analogy; it would be nice if we didn't murder or assault one another but since some of us do, the need for the force of law arises whether we find it philosophically preferable or not -- because the alternative is anarchy.

 

[Pogo]

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?

We be done with you Danth. Go prance in front of your mirror. The adults are talking now.

 

[dblack]

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.

That might make sense within the narrow context of remediating the effects of slavery. But the precedent it sets is problematic. I suspect we could have found ways to deal with racial bigotry that didn't involve throwing freedom of association under the bus.

Now we're saddled with a precedent that mandates bakers make cakes for gay weddings against their will.

Can you elaborate on the bold?

On the prior point, I agree we go too far when we try to social-engineer beyond basic human rights and public safety. Affirmative action for example. I just don't think the "colored" water fountains I saw with my own eyes would have gone away without a legal catalyst. And worse. Extend the analogy; it would be nice if we didn't murder or assault one another but since some of us do, the need for the force of law arises whether we find it philosophically preferable or not -- because the alternative is anarchy.

Of course. We need laws to protect our rights. The question is whether we have a 'right' to eat in a given restaurant, or be served by others against their will. That's where freedom of association comes in. The right to associate with people as we choose, and avoid people we don't like, IS a fundamental right and shouldn't be sacrificed in the name of social engineering, regardless of how irrational our pig-headed our reasons might be.

 

[Political Junky]

God encourages us to pray to Him in private if my Bible reading memory serves me, not to put your prayers on 'display' just for others to see and hear..., no?

◄ Matthew 6:5 ►

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

[Pogo]

That might make sense within the narrow context of remediating the effects of slavery. But the precedent it sets is problematic. I suspect we could have found ways to deal with racial bigotry that didn't involve throwing freedom of association under the bus.

Now we're saddled with a precedent that mandates bakers make cakes for gay weddings against their will.

Can you elaborate on the bold?

On the prior point, I agree we go too far when we try to social-engineer beyond basic human rights and public safety. Affirmative action for example. I just don't think the "colored" water fountains I saw with my own eyes would have gone away without a legal catalyst. And worse. Extend the analogy; it would be nice if we didn't murder or assault one another but since some of us do, the need for the force of law arises whether we find it philosophically preferable or not -- because the alternative is anarchy.

Of course. We need laws to protect our rights. The question is whether we have a 'right' to eat in a given restaurant, or be served by others against their will. That's where freedom of association comes in. The right to associate with people as we choose, and avoid people we don't like, IS a fundamental right and shouldn't be sacrificed in the name of social engineering, regardless of how irrational our pig-headed our reasons might be.

Could not a "No Negroes" sign on the door of a restaurant be defined as a manifestation of one's "right to associate with those one chooses"? As your post already notes, we need laws to protect our rights, and we means everybody.

How then to reconcile that with the Liberal tenet "all men are created equal" and the rights that naturally derive from it? Isn't this classism the very scourge that Liberalism was conceived to transcend?

 

[Pogo]

God encourages us to pray to Him in private if my Bible reading memory serves me, not to put your prayers on 'display' just for others to see and hear..., no?

◄ Matthew 6:5 ►

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

You guys are talking about Christianism. The proprietor of this restaurant isn't a Christian anyway. She notes her policy is a spiritual thing, not a religious thing. Although I would point out to her that there are many such paths that are not visually recognizable at ten paces.

 

[dblack]

Can you elaborate on the bold?

On the prior point, I agree we go too far when we try to social-engineer beyond basic human rights and public safety. Affirmative action for example. I just don't think the "colored" water fountains I saw with my own eyes would have gone away without a legal catalyst. And worse. Extend the analogy; it would be nice if we didn't murder or assault one another but since some of us do, the need for the force of law arises whether we find it philosophically preferable or not -- because the alternative is anarchy.

Of course. We need laws to protect our rights. The question is whether we have a 'right' to eat in a given restaurant, or be served by others against their will. That's where freedom of association comes in. The right to associate with people as we choose, and avoid people we don't like, IS a fundamental right and shouldn't be sacrificed in the name of social engineering, regardless of how irrational our pig-headed our reasons might be.

Could not a "No Negroes" sign on the door of a restaurant be defined as a manifestation of one's "right to associate with those one chooses"? As your post already notes, we need laws to protect our rights, and we means everybody.

How then to reconcile that with the Liberal tenet "all men are created equal" and the rights that naturally derive from it? Isn't this classism the very scourge that Liberalism was conceived to transcend?

Freedom of association doesn't mean you can force people to associate with you. It means the government can't tell you who you can and can't associate with.

 

[Pogo]

Of course. We need laws to protect our rights. The question is whether we have a 'right' to eat in a given restaurant, or be served by others against their will. That's where freedom of association comes in. The right to associate with people as we choose, and avoid people we don't like, IS a fundamental right and shouldn't be sacrificed in the name of social engineering, regardless of how irrational our pig-headed our reasons might be.

Could not a "No Negroes" sign on the door of a restaurant be defined as a manifestation of one's "right to associate with those one chooses"? As your post already notes, we need laws to protect our rights, and we means everybody.

How then to reconcile that with the Liberal tenet "all men are created equal" and the rights that naturally derive from it? Isn't this classism the very scourge that Liberalism was conceived to transcend?

Freedom of association doesn't mean you can force people to associate with you. It means the government can't tell you who you can and can't associate with.

You didn't answer the questions.

Does the clientèle you do your business with constitute an "association"?

 

[dblack]

Could not a "No Negroes" sign on the door of a restaurant be defined as a manifestation of one's "right to associate with those one chooses"? As your post already notes, we need laws to protect our rights, and we means everybody.

How then to reconcile that with the Liberal tenet "all men are created equal" and the rights that naturally derive from it? Isn't this classism the very scourge that Liberalism was conceived to transcend?

Freedom of association doesn't mean you can force people to associate with you. It means the government can't tell you who you can and can't associate with.

You didn't answer the questions.

Does the clientèle you do your business with constitute an "association"?

Yes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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?

We be done with you Danth. Go prance in front of your mirror. The adults are talking now.

Don't go getting pretentious, I dismissed you a long time ago.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder if they'd be nice enough to give that discount to someone praying to satan. If not, that would be an establishment discriminating against a religious belief.
As two studies involving patients in hospitals being prayed for (and not), demonstrated that those being prayed for by their church, had a poorer outcome than those who didn't have a church praying for them and thus demonstrating that prayer simply doesn't work, maybe the discount should be for those who don't pray, since it just takes up more table time at the restaurant.

really? That's not what a Harvard study says?

Testing Prayer ? Candy Gunther Brown | Harvard University Press

or this International study?

Prayers really can heal the sick, finds international study | Mail Online

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not sure what Pogo was getting at, but I don't think the hypothetical (of a restaurant charging a surcharge for people who prayed) implied any hidden charges. Just as the discount for praying at the restaurant in the OP wasn't hidden. And as long as there was no deception involved, I don't see how it would be any different.

If you're focused on the distinction between difference between a surcharge and a discount, how about if the atheist restaurant offered a discount for people who refrained from praying? Would you agree that that would be, essentially, the same sort of policy?

Yes, dear, offering people discounts for any reason at all is the same thing as offering people discounts for that particular reason. Shall I break out the fucking crayons and draw you a picture, or have we fully covered the "Duhh" factor in this now? Offering discounts = one thing. Charging extra money = something else.

Sheesh.

Oh, and it's a "hidden charge" if you don't tell people outright in some way or other BEFORE they incur the charge that it exists. Which I've already said.

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.

I get tired of answering piss-stupid questions over and over. But by all means, focus on how offended you are that I pointed out how piss-stupid it was and go on a moronic tirade about not getting the answer that was right there. It certainly makes you sound less like a kindergartner.

 

[Pogo]

Freedom of association doesn't mean you can force people to associate with you. It means the government can't tell you who you can and can't associate with.

You didn't answer the questions.

Does the clientèle you do your business with constitute an "association"?

Yes.

That answers the first question.

So to the second: how do you reconcile something like racism, the manifestations of which are abundant historical fact, with the previous note that we need the law to protect our rights? IOW if you leave it laissez-faire for the unwashed to wash themselves and it doesn't get done, what then? How do you protect the rights of those four students in Greensboro without law?

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if they'd be nice enough to give that discount to someone praying to satan. If not, that would be an establishment discriminating against a religious belief.
As two studies involving patients in hospitals being prayed for (and not), demonstrated that those being prayed for by their church, had a poorer outcome than those who didn't have a church praying for them and thus demonstrating that prayer simply doesn't work, maybe the discount should be for those who don't pray, since it just takes up more table time at the restaurant.

really? That's not what a Harvard study says?

Testing Prayer ? Candy Gunther Brown | Harvard University Press

or this International study?

Prayers really can heal the sick, finds international study | Mail Online

I'm not gonna bother to read either study but I agree more with C4 here. Prayers, incantations, simple good thoughts, whatever we may call them, put a certain psychic energy into the universal consciousness, and that energy has to go somewhere. It really doesn't matter if a prayer said to Great God Katchu who Live Far to North in Frigid New York is offered for Jane Doe when Jane doesn't believe in Katchu. It's the thoughtform that counts because that's the energy that genuinely exists. Katchu is just the vehicle.

It's a pagan thing.

 

[dblack]

You didn't answer the questions.

Does the clientèle you do your business with constitute an "association"?

Yes.

That answers the first question.

So to the second: how do you reconcile something like racism, the manifestations of which are abundant historical fact, with the previous note that we need the law to protect our rights? IOW if you leave it laissez-faire for the unwashed to wash themselves and it doesn't get done, what then? How do you protect the rights of those four students in Greensboro without law?

I don't believe any of us can claim a right to impose ourselves on others, regardless of how unreasonable their reasons might be for rejecting us.

 

[Pogo]

Yes.

That answers the first question.

So to the second: how do you reconcile something like racism, the manifestations of which are abundant historical fact, with the previous note that we need the law to protect our rights? IOW if you leave it laissez-faire for the unwashed to wash themselves and it doesn't get done, what then? How do you protect the rights of those four students in Greensboro without law?

I don't believe any of us can claim a right to impose ourselves on others, regardless of how unreasonable their reasons might be for rejecting us.

So that eliminates civil rights laws. And for that matter it eliminates laws against slavery. Without those, arguably we still have discrimination, an untouchable lower class, and the rampant lynchings and riots we were having a century ago.

Is that not anarchy? At what point is enough enough?

 

[dblack]

That answers the first question.

So to the second: how do you reconcile something like racism, the manifestations of which are abundant historical fact, with the previous note that we need the law to protect our rights? IOW if you leave it laissez-faire for the unwashed to wash themselves and it doesn't get done, what then? How do you protect the rights of those four students in Greensboro without law?

I don't believe any of us can claim a right to impose ourselves on others, regardless of how unreasonable their reasons might be for rejecting us.

So that eliminates civil rights laws. And for that matter it eliminates laws against slavery. Without those, arguably we still have discrimination, an untouchable lower class, and the rampant lynchings and riots we were having a century ago.

Is that not anarchy? At what point is enough enough?

Good grief, no. It would overrule some stipulations of civil rights law, but not the bulk of it, not the portions that demand equal treatment under the law. Those are fully supported by my point of view.

How in the world would you interpret not having a right to impose yourself on others as legalizing slavery? It's exactly opposite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I do wish leftists would get over the idea that "discrimination" is always a bad word and an insult, and that everything in the world is required to prove that it's not "discrimination". And that triumphal, "Ah, but what about BLACK people?!" they always pull out as their ace-in-the-hole - because obviously, no one could ever think it's okay to allow people to openly express dislike of blacks if they so choose - is one of the most annoying, kneejerk, I-came-to-the-debate-with-no-brain techniques on the planet.

Of COURSE offering discounts is discrimination, you ignoramus. By its nature, it is an attempt to encourage a certain behavior, circumstance, or type of customer, which means it is going to discriminate in favor of those things. My favorite supermarket chain has Senior Wednesday the first Wednesday of every month, during which they give an additional discount off all purchases to people 65 and over. The reason, of course, is that senior citizens get their Social Security checks at the beginning of the month, and they usually tend to do all their monthly marketing at that time. The chain wants to encourage them to come spend their SS checks there, and it works. You can't swing a dead cat in that store without hitting someone wrinkled on that day. Is that discrimination against people under 65? Sure. So what?

For that matter, the same store chain offers extra discounts each and every day over the regular item price for people who have one of their VIP cards, and they give those cardholders discounts on the gas purchased at their store's gas station based on how much money they spend there. Are they discriminating against people who don't shop there much, or don't want to apply for a card and have their purchases tracked by the chain? Sure. So what?

So yeah, this restaurant owner is discriminating against people who can't take the time to reflect and be grateful on their meals and their ability to afford to eat there. And while I don't think it's a personally good thing to do, people in this country have a right to be flaming bigots, if that's their choice, just as people have the right to be drooling morons. Although considering that YOU are not in this country, you're definitely abusing that last privilege.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What's hard to understand about that? You can't wrap your brain around the idea that people should be able to do things that you, personally, have not issued your stamp of approval to?