Restaraunt gives discount for praying

[Pogo]

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.

Like anything else, if you don't have a law against it, then slavery is legal. And for centuries it was traditional, so it would exist. It DID exist, and only ceased to exist when illegalized. And even then it was done in stages (importation first). If we didn't pass laws against it, what would cause it to cease?

If you have a way to do that without laws, I'm on board but I just don't see how. The abolition movement came first, which drove the law, but without that instrument (the law), why would we expect an entire sea change? What would drive it, if not law?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

*sigh* What is the disconnect for you between "People should be allowed to do that" and "It's cool to do that". Americans have the right to do lots of things, many of which may be really terrible ideas, or at least may not meet the approval of other people. For example, you have every right to post whatever you want to say on this message board. I think you have a barely-room-temperature IQ, politically-speaking, and I think it would be a really bad idea for you to speak in public. That doesn't negate your right to do so. I will also defend your right to do so, but that doesn't mean I think it's "cool" that you do it.

 

[dblack]

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.

Like anything else, if you don't have a law against it, then slavery is legal. And for centuries it was traditional, so it would exist. It DID exist, and only ceased to exist when illegalized. And even then it was done in stages (importation first). If we didn't pass laws against it, what would cause it to cease?

If you have a way to do that without laws, I'm on board but I just don't see how. The abolition movement came first, which drove the law, but without that instrument (the law), why would we expect an entire sea change? What would drive it, if not law?

I'm confused. Where did you get the idea that I'm opposed to laws against slavery? My ideology requires them.

 

[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?

*sigh* What is the disconnect for you between "People should be allowed to do that" and "It's cool to do that". Americans have the right to do lots of things, many of which may be really terrible ideas, or at least may not meet the approval of other people. For example, you have every right to post whatever you want to say on this message board. I think you have a barely-room-temperature IQ, politically-speaking, and I think it would be a really bad idea for you to speak in public. That doesn't negate your right to do so. I will also defend your right to do so, but that doesn't mean I think it's "cool" that you do it.

What manner of bloated narcissism gives you the impression that I give a flying fuck what you of all creatures think? Nobody's talking to you. Bite me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You do realize that the problem with discrimination is that it was institutionalized, right? In other words, it wasn't really the individual people, by and large, who wanted to have things that way. It was the government passing laws MAKING it be that way, on the prompting of a vocal minority. Rosa Parks and her protest against discrimination in transportation, for example. It wasn't the transportation companies who wanted to fart around with that segregated seating nonsense. The law forced them to.

So yeah, I think "colored" water fountains and such would have gone away on their own without the government benevolently passing laws to counteract their own frigging laws. I don't think the vast majority of individual people care enough to on a regular, consistent basis to go to that much trouble.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Like anything else, if you don't have a law against it, then slavery is legal. And for centuries it was traditional, so it would exist. It DID exist, and only ceased to exist when illegalized. And even then it was done in stages (importation first). If we didn't pass laws against it, what would cause it to cease?

If you have a way to do that without laws, I'm on board but I just don't see how. The abolition movement came first, which drove the law, but without that instrument (the law), why would we expect an entire sea change? What would drive it, if not law?

I'm confused. Where did you get the idea that I'm opposed to laws against slavery? My ideology requires them.

Posts like this -

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.

Is the practice of slavery not a moral question? Is not civil discrimination?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Thanks for sharing, Reverend. Remind me again what your qualifications are for preaching to people about how to exercise their faith?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Can't imagine WANTING to associate with someone so ignorant that they consider race a valid reason for shunning others. I personally tend to avoid those people, even when it's not MY race they have a problem with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Women? Asians? Indians? The lefthanded?

*sigh* What is the disconnect for you between "People should be allowed to do that" and "It's cool to do that". Americans have the right to do lots of things, many of which may be really terrible ideas, or at least may not meet the approval of other people. For example, you have every right to post whatever you want to say on this message board. I think you have a barely-room-temperature IQ, politically-speaking, and I think it would be a really bad idea for you to speak in public. That doesn't negate your right to do so. I will also defend your right to do so, but that doesn't mean I think it's "cool" that you do it.

What manner of bloated narcissism gives you the impression that I give a flying fuck what you of all creatures think? Nobody's talking to you. Bite me.

My, my, my. Someone's a grouchy little hypocrite this morning.

By the by, punkin, posting in a public forum and then trying to demand that only certain people are allowed to respond to the stupid shit you say would be . . . wait for it . . . discrimination.

My work here is done. Happy frothing.

 

[Pogo]

Man, that was like pulling teeth.

Narcissists...

 

[dblack]

Like anything else, if you don't have a law against it, then slavery is legal. And for centuries it was traditional, so it would exist. It DID exist, and only ceased to exist when illegalized. And even then it was done in stages (importation first). If we didn't pass laws against it, what would cause it to cease?

If you have a way to do that without laws, I'm on board but I just don't see how. The abolition movement came first, which drove the law, but without that instrument (the law), why would we expect an entire sea change? What would drive it, if not law?

I'm confused. Where did you get the idea that I'm opposed to laws against slavery? My ideology requires them.

Posts like this -

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.

Is the practice of slavery not a moral question? Is not civil discrimination?

Yeah? I said there a lots of moral issues that would be wrong to legislate, and there are many that would wrong for the law to ignore. But the distinction doesn't depend on morality. It depends on whether someones rights are being violated. Slavery is a gross violation of human rights. Not getting invited to eat a someone's restaurant isn't.

This disparity in viewpoints is why many libertarians consider modern liberalism to be fundamentally authoritarian. Many people seem to assume that government is the authority on all questions of morality, with the authority to dictate our behavior in all cases. And we reject that. Government is there to protect us from bullies. Not to force them to be nice to us. Or us to be nice to them.

 

[Pogo]

I'm confused. Where did you get the idea that I'm opposed to laws against slavery? My ideology requires them.

Posts like this -

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.

Is the practice of slavery not a moral question? Is not civil discrimination?

Yeah? I said there a lots of moral issues that would be wrong to legislate, and there are many that would wrong for the law to ignore. But the distinction doesn't depend on morality. It depends on whether someones rights are being violated. Slavery is a gross violation of human rights. Not getting invited to eat a someone's restaurant isn't.

This disparity in viewpoints is why many libertarians consider modern liberalism to be fundamentally authoritarian. Many people seem to assume that government is the authority on all questions of morality, with the authority to dictate our behavior in all cases. And we reject that. Government is there to protect us from bullies. Not to force them to be nice to us. Or us to be nice to them.

"Nice" doesn't even enter into it. And I notice you try to spin into "being invited", which is just dishonest.

You're hot and tired after a full day of work, you stop in at a restaurant. They tell you to GTFO because they don't serve people of your skin color. Even though they're open to the public. Or -- you're schooled and eminently qualified to be a framistan adjuster, so you go to a job interview where such a position is offered, and you're told even though you're the only one qualified, you don't get the job because "we don't hire purple people". Do the math.

Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. What you're espousing here is Liberalism. And that's fine, but there comes a limit. To rehash the earlier example, it would be --- "nice" if people didn't kill each other, and then we wouldn't need homicide laws. But they do, so we do. "Inviting" people to not do that just doesn't take human nature into account. Nor does clicking our red shoes together and chanting "discrimination go away". I suspect what you're vaguely trying to get at here is leftism, not Liberalism. Affirmative Action for example. That's a bit deeper than the law simply acting as a referee to guarantee civil rights.

 

[saveliberty]

The business is not discriminating at all. It is rewarding people for a ceratin behavior. Businesses do that all the time. I have a Kroger card that rewards me with cheaper fuel as I spend more money with them on a monthly basis. I have had pizza cards which entitled me to a free pizza after so many purchases. Subway has a daily sandwich discount for each day of the week. How dare they discriminate against my sandwich six days a week!

 

[Pogo]

The business is not discriminating at all. It is rewarding people for a ceratin behavior. Businesses do that all the time. I have a Kroger card that rewards me with cheaper fuel as I spend more money with them on a monthly basis. I have had pizza cards which entitled me to a free pizza after so many purchases. Subway has a daily sandwich discount for each day of the week. How dare they discriminate against my sandwich six days a week!

It could be argued that the difference is that Kroger, the pizza shop and Subway tell everybody what they're doing so that they can avail themselves of it should they choose to. I think that's Mary's grey area.

 

[dblack]

Posts like this -


Is the practice of slavery not a moral question? Is not civil discrimination?

Yeah? I said there a lots of moral issues that would be wrong to legislate, and there are many that would wrong for the law to ignore. But the distinction doesn't depend on morality. It depends on whether someones rights are being violated. Slavery is a gross violation of human rights. Not getting invited to eat a someone's restaurant isn't.

This disparity in viewpoints is why many libertarians consider modern liberalism to be fundamentally authoritarian. Many people seem to assume that government is the authority on all questions of morality, with the authority to dictate our behavior in all cases. And we reject that. Government is there to protect us from bullies. Not to force them to be nice to us. Or us to be nice to them.

"Nice" doesn't even enter into it. And I notice you try to spin into "being invited", which is just dishonest.

Spin? It was a deliberate choice of words to make a point. Public accommodations laws are telling people who they must associate with, and taking away the fundamental right to say "no" when someone else wants you to do something for them. Unless you've signed a contract, or the equivalent, you should never be forced to serve others on demand. That's the essence of slavery.

You're hot and tired after a full day of work, you stop in at a restaurant. They tell you to GTFO because they don't serve people of your skin color. Even though they're open to the public. Or -- you're schooled and eminently qualified to be a framistan adjuster, so you go to a job interview where such a position is offered, and you're told even though you're the only one qualified, you don't get the job because "we don't hire purple people". Do the math.

What math? People are turned down for jobs for all kinds of bizarre reasons. People have all kinds of irrational preferences on who they like and who they want to work with. Are you really saying they shouldn't have the right to act on those preferences?

What if the same rule was applied to consumers. Should your racist neighbor, who refuses to shop at the local grocery because its owned by Asians, be required to shop there? Should she be punished because she drives across town to shop in the "white" neighborhood instead? I shouldn't need to, but I'll reiterate that I think these attitudes are idiotic. But it's not up to me, or you. to tell others what they're preferences should be.

Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. What you're espousing here is Liberalism. And that's fine, but there comes a limit. To rehash the earlier example, it would be --- "nice" if people didn't kill each other, and then we wouldn't need homicide laws. But they do, so we do. "Inviting" people to not do that just doesn't take human nature into account. Nor does clicking our red shoes together and chanting "discrimination go away". I suspect what you're vaguely trying to get at here is leftism, not Liberalism. Affirmative Action for example.

Yeah. Arguing over definitions gets tricky - especially for words as broad and longstanding as 'liberal'. I see myself as a 'liberal' as well, but I have very little in common politically with most who call themselves liberals, so I rarely say so. The key difference here, as I see it, is that you're looking at government as a tool to make people better, to make them behave how you want them to behave. And libertarians see that as, at best, a kind of hubris. It's not up to me to decide how other people should behave. As long as they're not interfering with my freedom to behave as I wish, it's none of my business.

If a restaurant refuses the business of someone, for whatever reason, they're not harming them. They're not violating their rights. They're just saying "no thanks, we don't want your business". If they're doing that for nasty, bigoted reasons, we should complain about it. We should tell our friends, protest in public, let the whole world know what a bunch of redneck idiots the owners of the establishment are. But there's no justification to send in the cops and arrest them. That IS authoritarian and I can't support it.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah? I said there a lots of moral issues that would be wrong to legislate, and there are many that would wrong for the law to ignore. But the distinction doesn't depend on morality. It depends on whether someones rights are being violated. Slavery is a gross violation of human rights. Not getting invited to eat a someone's restaurant isn't.

This disparity in viewpoints is why many libertarians consider modern liberalism to be fundamentally authoritarian. Many people seem to assume that government is the authority on all questions of morality, with the authority to dictate our behavior in all cases. And we reject that. Government is there to protect us from bullies. Not to force them to be nice to us. Or us to be nice to them.

"Nice" doesn't even enter into it. And I notice you try to spin into "being invited", which is just dishonest.

Spin? It was a deliberate choice of words to make a point. Public accommodations laws are telling people who they must associate with, and taking away the fundamental right to say "no" when someone else wants you to do something for them. Unless you've signed a contract, or the equivalent, you should never be forced to serve others on demand. That's the essence of slavery.

Telling a shop that does business with the public that they can't refuse service based on skin color is "enslaving" them now?

You can't, and shouldn't try to, legislate thought or preferences, which is not what that is. That's legislating actions -- or from the perspective of the despised, it's guaranteeing opportunities -- which you've already agreed is necessary. How that shop owner feels about it is irrelevant to the law.

You're hot and tired after a full day of work, you stop in at a restaurant. They tell you to GTFO because they don't serve people of your skin color. Even though they're open to the public. Or -- you're schooled and eminently qualified to be a framistan adjuster, so you go to a job interview where such a position is offered, and you're told even though you're the only one qualified, you don't get the job because "we don't hire purple people". Do the math.

What math? People are turned down for jobs for all kinds of bizarre reasons. People have all kinds of irrational preferences on who they like and who they want to work with. Are you really saying they shouldn't have the right to act on those preferences?

What if the same rule was applied to consumers. Should your racist neighbor, who refuses to shop at the local grocery because its owned by Asians, be required to shop there? Should she be punished because she drives across town to shop in the "white" neighborhood instead? I shouldn't need to, but I'll reiterate that I think these attitudes are idiotic. But it's not up to me, or you. to tell others what they're preferences should be.

We can't legislate "preferences", nor should we if we could. You're spinning the question into the reverse of itself. It ain't about forcing a consumer to choose a business; it's about denying the opportunity to that consumer for a choice she already made.

Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. What you're espousing here is Liberalism. And that's fine, but there comes a limit. To rehash the earlier example, it would be --- "nice" if people didn't kill each other, and then we wouldn't need homicide laws. But they do, so we do. "Inviting" people to not do that just doesn't take human nature into account. Nor does clicking our red shoes together and chanting "discrimination go away". I suspect what you're vaguely trying to get at here is leftism, not Liberalism. Affirmative Action for example.

Yeah. Arguing over definitions gets tricky - especially for words as broad and longstanding as 'liberal'. I see myself as a 'liberal' as well, but I have very little in common politically with most who call themselves liberals, so I rarely say so. The key difference here, as I see it, is that you're looking at government as a tool to make people better, to make them behave how you want them to behave. And libertarians see that as, at best, a kind of hubris. It's not up to me to decide how other people should behave. As long as they're not interfering with my freedom to behave as I wish, it's none of my business.

If a restaurant refuses the business of someone, for whatever reason, they're not harming them. They're not violating their rights. They're just saying "no thanks, we don't want your business". If they're doing that for nasty, bigoted reasons, we should complain about it. We should tell our friends, protest in public, let the whole world know what a bunch of redneck idiots the owners of the establishment are. But there's no justification to send in the cops and arrest them. That IS authoritarian and I can't support it.

I don't think the "cops going in and arresting them" is how that works. Actually that's how institutionalized racial discrimination worked. What about the rights of the aggrieved? The rights you already agreed must be protected by law? How do you do that? You can't just look at it from the viewpoint of the bigot; there's a second party here.

Again, if you have a way to accomplish that without the instrument of law, I'm all ears.

 

[dblack]

"Nice" doesn't even enter into it. And I notice you try to spin into "being invited", which is just dishonest.

Spin? It was a deliberate choice of words to make a point. Public accommodations laws are telling people who they must associate with, and taking away the fundamental right to say "no" when someone else wants you to do something for them. Unless you've signed a contract, or the equivalent, you should never be forced to serve others on demand. That's the essence of slavery.

Telling a shop that does business with the public that they can't refuse service based on skin color is "enslaving" them now?

You can't, and shouldn't try to, legislate thought or preferences, which is not what that is. That's legislating actions -- or from the perspective of the despised, it's guaranteeing opportunities -- which you've already agreed is necessary. How that shop owner feels about it is irrelevant to the law.



We can't legislate "preferences", nor should we if we could. You're spinning the question into the reverse of itself. It ain't about forcing a consumer to choose a business; it's about denying the opportunity to that consumer for a choice she already made.

Liberalism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. What you're espousing here is Liberalism. And that's fine, but there comes a limit. To rehash the earlier example, it would be --- "nice" if people didn't kill each other, and then we wouldn't need homicide laws. But they do, so we do. "Inviting" people to not do that just doesn't take human nature into account. Nor does clicking our red shoes together and chanting "discrimination go away". I suspect what you're vaguely trying to get at here is leftism, not Liberalism. Affirmative Action for example.

Yeah. Arguing over definitions gets tricky - especially for words as broad and longstanding as 'liberal'. I see myself as a 'liberal' as well, but I have very little in common politically with most who call themselves liberals, so I rarely say so. The key difference here, as I see it, is that you're looking at government as a tool to make people better, to make them behave how you want them to behave. And libertarians see that as, at best, a kind of hubris. It's not up to me to decide how other people should behave. As long as they're not interfering with my freedom to behave as I wish, it's none of my business.

If a restaurant refuses the business of someone, for whatever reason, they're not harming them. They're not violating their rights. They're just saying "no thanks, we don't want your business". If they're doing that for nasty, bigoted reasons, we should complain about it. We should tell our friends, protest in public, let the whole world know what a bunch of redneck idiots the owners of the establishment are. But there's no justification to send in the cops and arrest them. That IS authoritarian and I can't support it.

I don't think the "cops going in and arresting them" is how that works. Actually that's how institutionalized racial discrimination worked. What about the rights of the aggrieved? The rights you already agreed must be protected by law? How do you do that? You can't just look at it from the viewpoint of the bigot; there's a second party here.

Again, if you have a way to accomplish that without the instrument of law, I'm all ears.

I don't recall agreeing that "guaranteeing opportunities" was necessary. And I stated that I don't think being refused service is violating anyone's rights. I don't have a "right" to another's service.

 

[Pogo]

Spin? It was a deliberate choice of words to make a point. Public accommodations laws are telling people who they must associate with, and taking away the fundamental right to say "no" when someone else wants you to do something for them. Unless you've signed a contract, or the equivalent, you should never be forced to serve others on demand. That's the essence of slavery.

Telling a shop that does business with the public that they can't refuse service based on skin color is "enslaving" them now?

You can't, and shouldn't try to, legislate thought or preferences, which is not what that is. That's legislating actions -- or from the perspective of the despised, it's guaranteeing opportunities -- which you've already agreed is necessary. How that shop owner feels about it is irrelevant to the law.



We can't legislate "preferences", nor should we if we could. You're spinning the question into the reverse of itself. It ain't about forcing a consumer to choose a business; it's about denying the opportunity to that consumer for a choice she already made.

Yeah. Arguing over definitions gets tricky - especially for words as broad and longstanding as 'liberal'. I see myself as a 'liberal' as well, but I have very little in common politically with most who call themselves liberals, so I rarely say so. The key difference here, as I see it, is that you're looking at government as a tool to make people better, to make them behave how you want them to behave. And libertarians see that as, at best, a kind of hubris. It's not up to me to decide how other people should behave. As long as they're not interfering with my freedom to behave as I wish, it's none of my business.

If a restaurant refuses the business of someone, for whatever reason, they're not harming them. They're not violating their rights. They're just saying "no thanks, we don't want your business". If they're doing that for nasty, bigoted reasons, we should complain about it. We should tell our friends, protest in public, let the whole world know what a bunch of redneck idiots the owners of the establishment are. But there's no justification to send in the cops and arrest them. That IS authoritarian and I can't support it.

I don't think the "cops going in and arresting them" is how that works. Actually that's how institutionalized racial discrimination worked. What about the rights of the aggrieved? The rights you already agreed must be protected by law? How do you do that? You can't just look at it from the viewpoint of the bigot; there's a second party here.

Again, if you have a way to accomplish that without the instrument of law, I'm all ears.

I don't recall agreeing that "guaranteeing opportunities" was necessary. And I stated that I don't think being refused service is violating anyone's rights. I don't have a "right" to another's service.

Here, at the beginning:

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.

To clarify, and I'm not a lawyer, just playing one on the internets, but I don't think it amounts to a "right to service" on the part of the consumer; I read it as the right of a business owner to operate to the public while excluding some of it based on his own bigotry. It's not that the customer has the "right" to be there, but rather that the business, licensed to operate to the public, does not have the "right" to pick and choose which public. Businesses after all operate at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around.

Again, who that business chooses to "associate with" (or target as a market) is entirely their business. But business transactions aren't ''associations". You're trying to rationalize the practice of discrimination by conflating the two.

 

[Unkotare]

How would it be significantly different?

You don't know the difference between a discount and a surcharge? Really?

Yeah, I get it. The difference is purely formal.

That is not even remotely true. The difference is entirely substantive. Your reality-altering powers aren't working.

 

[Unkotare]

Just a news flash, if you followed the link in the OP you would know that the restaurant was asked that question, and that they had no problem with giving the discount to Muslims, or any other religion, because the idea is to foster gratitude, not religion. ...

Here's a news flash backatcha: I read the linked story in the OP of Unkotare's thread -- you know, the one that was merged with your thread. It said nothing about Mary's response to the flack that arose from the story going viral. The reply you quoted was posted prior to the merger.

As I've now stated in this thread, I have no problem with the practice, as long as it's applied equitably.

How can such a policy be applied to atheists? An atheist doesn't pray, and in fact finds the practice repugnant and offensive.

That's not just an atheist, that's a bigot. But fine, don't pray. Enjoy your meal, pay your bill, go home, and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Not so complicated.