Restaraunt gives discount for praying

[saveliberty]

Those of you whining, did you complain this much about senior discounts before you got one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I see you still can't post without running into your inability to hold a cohesive thought.

How, exactly, does someone not doing business with people they disagree with lead to slavery? Explain the entire process, in whatever detail you can muster, so I can thoroughly laugh at how stupid you are.

There is no way that expanding freedom can lead to less freedom, the only thing that leads to less freedom is expanding the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Hey, dipshit, the law actually supported slavery back then, which is why it was legal. As for the nonsense that, just because something isn't illegal, that makes it legal, I am pretty sure there isn't a law that says I cannot drive my car on a water slide full of children, yet I am also 100% sure that me doing so would violate the law. In other words, you are still an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Aww, you got your fweelings hurt.

Tissue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

Your argument would carry more weight if you didn't support the government forcing people to do things you think is right. That, by definition, is authoritarian, no matter which side of the isle it comes from. Leftism is modern day liberals/progressives, despite the fact that you insist they don't exist simply because it makes the real world to complicated for you to deal with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Is there a law that requires business to advertise every fucking thing they do now? Or is that just your authoritarian fantasy about how things should work?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

Nice to see you admit you aren't a liberal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.



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.

To clarify even further, you are not an intelligent person, you just play one on the Internet.

You do realize that dblack has already explained his position regarding everything you just posted, don't you? Yet you keep arguing the same stupid thing, and pretending that it make you smart because you don't understand anything beyond your personal bigotry.

 

[dblack]

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.



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.

Are you trying to say that "opportunities" are a right? A right is a protected freedom, not a guarantee of some specific set of circumstances.

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.

Yeah. I don't get that. I don't see why it should be either "way around". No one should have to ask the state permission to trade.

You can get a different perspective on all this if you've ever worked as in independent contractor, where the line between employee, employer and customer is less well-defined. In those situations, you begin to simply see people trading goods and services with each other. And the idea of anyone having to perform at any regime's "pleasure", rather than mutually voluntary interaction, is particularly irksome.

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.

How are they not? Where does the notion that we forfeit our rights as individuals when conducting trade come from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Is there a law that requires business to advertise every fucking thing they do now? Or is that just your authoritarian fantasy about how things should work?

Seems to me that the difference is that Kroger's, etc., are actively using the discounts to garner more customers, and Mary isn't. The idea that discounts aren't legal or legitimate unless they're widely advertised is utterly ludicrous. She doesn't need to justify her desire to reward certain behaviors to anyone. She just likes seeing people recognize how thankful they should be in their lives. If I run a store and occasionally give out free lollipops to kids, just because I like seeing them smile, am I now running afoul of some heretofore unmentioned "discrimination in niceness" law? Must I start keeping a chart of what color each child was, so that I can prove that I wasn't discriminating by handing out more to one group than another?

Leftists want to legislate and mandate random acts of kindness, and then wonder why the world is so much less nice in general.

 

[saveliberty]

Discounts are rights now? How ignorantly quaint.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Is there a law that requires business to advertise every fucking thing they do now? Or is that just your authoritarian fantasy about how things should work?

Seems to me that the difference is that Kroger's, etc., are actively using the discounts to garner more customers, and Mary isn't. The idea that discounts aren't legal or legitimate unless they're widely advertised is utterly ludicrous. She doesn't need to justify her desire to reward certain behaviors to anyone. She just likes seeing people recognize how thankful they should be in their lives. If I run a store and occasionally give out free lollipops to kids, just because I like seeing them smile, am I now running afoul of some heretofore unmentioned "discrimination in niceness" law? Must I start keeping a chart of what color each child was, so that I can prove that I wasn't discriminating by handing out more to one group than another?

Leftists want to legislate and mandate random acts of kindness, and then wonder why the world is so much less nice in general.

What you're responding to there is a troll, like you, perverting what used to be my point. Essentially he sets the strawman up and you knock him down. None of your pissant bullshit has anything to do with anything I posted.

The point I made back there was that if a business is giving certain people a lower price than others, and isn't letting those who didn't get that lower price of the opportunity, then she may be in a legal grey area. And I don't know that, I'm speculating, since as I said I'm not a lawyer.

At no time did I opine what I "want", nor did I opine on what's "nice" or "kind", nor did I suggest, indicate, hint at or in any way refer to "mandating" or "legislating" jack shit. You made that up out of thin air because you can't handle rational discussion or perhaps can't read. Which is not news.

Of course those distinctions are prolly completely over your head, so don't worry about it.

 

[Pogo]

Discounts are rights now? How ignorantly quaint.

No, discounts aren't "rights", nobody said that. We're infested with attention whore trolls who just can't stand the idea of intelligent conversations going on that they can't follow so they sabotage them.


/thread

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is there a law that requires business to advertise every fucking thing they do now? Or is that just your authoritarian fantasy about how things should work?

Seems to me that the difference is that Kroger's, etc., are actively using the discounts to garner more customers, and Mary isn't. The idea that discounts aren't legal or legitimate unless they're widely advertised is utterly ludicrous. She doesn't need to justify her desire to reward certain behaviors to anyone. She just likes seeing people recognize how thankful they should be in their lives. If I run a store and occasionally give out free lollipops to kids, just because I like seeing them smile, am I now running afoul of some heretofore unmentioned "discrimination in niceness" law? Must I start keeping a chart of what color each child was, so that I can prove that I wasn't discriminating by handing out more to one group than another?

Leftists want to legislate and mandate random acts of kindness, and then wonder why the world is so much less nice in general.

What you're responding to there is a troll, like you, perverting what used to be my point. Essentially he sets the strawman up and you knock him down. None of your pissant bullshit has anything to do with anything I posted.

The point I made back there was that if a business is giving certain people a lower price than others, and isn't letting those who didn't get that lower price of the opportunity, then she may be in a legal grey area. And I don't know that, I'm speculating, since as I said I'm not a lawyer.

At no time did I opine what I "want", nor did I opine on what's "nice" or "kind", nor did I suggest, indicate, hint at or in any way refer to "mandating" or "legislating" jack shit. You made that up out of thin air because you can't handle rational discussion or perhaps can't read. Which is not news.

Of course those distinctions are prolly completely over your head, so don't worry about it.

Poor baby, find yourself at a loss for words again? The advantage of resorting to insults over civil conversation is that, when I win the argument despite the fact that I am not civil, the other person is reduced to throwing around insults rather than making a case for his argument.

The point I made is that you don't know what you are talking about. All you calling me a troll for pointing out that truth accomplishes is proving that I am actually correct, you don't know what you are talking about. There is no legal gray area outside the minds of authoritarians assholes in offering unadvertised discounts. As for someone getting the discount if they want it, the OP actually explained, in detail, that there was no religious requirement for said discount, thus anyone that wants it can get it by simply showing appreciation for their food.

That said, keep pretending you have a point, it amuses me.

 

[saveliberty]

Discounts are rights now? How ignorantly quaint.

No, discounts aren't "rights", nobody said that. We're infested with attention whore trolls who just can't stand the idea of intelligent conversations going on that they can't follow so they sabotage them.


/thread

So if it isn't a right to get a discount and there is no law against giving one, your point would be? See sometimes you have to back up a bit in order to have perspective. What about getting a discount for being the tenth caller? Should all the other callers sue?

You were using race as a parallel, that would be more of a rights based argument. Now you choose to say it isn't a rights based argument? Interesting.

 

[Pogo]

Discounts are rights now? How ignorantly quaint.

No, discounts aren't "rights", nobody said that. We're infested with attention whore trolls who just can't stand the idea of intelligent conversations going on that they can't follow so they sabotage them.


/thread

So if it isn't a right to get a discount and there is no law against giving one, your point would be? See sometimes you have to back up a bit in order to have perspective. What about getting a discount for being the tenth caller? Should all the other callers sue?

You were using race as a parallel, that would be more of a rights based argument. Now you choose to say it isn't a rights based argument? Interesting.

No. I never said it had anything to do with "rights". Again, that's trolls trying to pervert the argument because they can't handle it any other way.

The race thing was a completely different tangent, after a poster said that a (hypothetical) restaurant should be allowed to offer discounts to white people. The first thing I pointed out was that that isn't the same case. Not related to this restaurant or what it's doing.

I've had it with these fucking lowlife trolls and their endless dishonest bullshit.

 

[dblack]

No, discounts aren't "rights", nobody said that. We're infested with attention whore trolls who just can't stand the idea of intelligent conversations going on that they can't follow so they sabotage them.


/thread

So if it isn't a right to get a discount and there is no law against giving one, your point would be? See sometimes you have to back up a bit in order to have perspective. What about getting a discount for being the tenth caller? Should all the other callers sue?

You were using race as a parallel, that would be more of a rights based argument. Now you choose to say it isn't a rights based argument? Interesting.

No. I never said it had anything to do with "rights". Again, that's trolls trying to pervert the argument because they can't handle it any other way.

The race thing was a completely different tangent, after a poster said that a (hypothetical) restaurant should be allowed to offer discounts to white people. The first thing I pointed out was that that isn't the same case. Not related to this restaurant or what it's doing.

I've had it with these fucking lowlife trolls and their endless dishonest bullshit.

I think the race thing is quite related. In fact, I think it's the most interesting aspect of this issue. Public accommodations laws beg for this kind of debate, and it doesn't happen often enough.

I don't see anything fundamentally different between giving discounts to religious people and giving discounts to a specific race. In either case the business owner is granting preferential treatment to one group and excluding others.

 

[Jackson]

So if it isn't a right to get a discount and there is no law against giving one, your point would be? See sometimes you have to back up a bit in order to have perspective. What about getting a discount for being the tenth caller? Should all the other callers sue?

You were using race as a parallel, that would be more of a rights based argument. Now you choose to say it isn't a rights based argument? Interesting.

No. I never said it had anything to do with "rights". Again, that's trolls trying to pervert the argument because they can't handle it any other way.

The race thing was a completely different tangent, after a poster said that a (hypothetical) restaurant should be allowed to offer discounts to white people. The first thing I pointed out was that that isn't the same case. Not related to this restaurant or what it's doing.

I've had it with these fucking lowlife trolls and their endless dishonest bullshit.

I think the race thing is quite related. In fact, I think it's the most interesting aspect of this issue. Public accommodations laws beg for this kind of debate, and it doesn't happen often enough.

I don't see anything fundamentally different between giving discounts to religious people and giving discounts to a specific race. In either case the business owner is granting preferential treatment to one group and excluding others.

For some reason, I think race is a monster of its own. It raises emotions that religions and ethnicities don't. I see what you are saying and can understand it but I think people would allow one discrimination pass and not the other.

But as a Christian, I do not think a discount is in order if I choose to pray before my meal. And, personally I would be offended if I received one. I would ask that it be removed for my reward was from the Lord, not intended to be from the proprietor of a restaurant. So Be It.

 

[saveliberty]

Discount for breastfeeding moms?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So if it isn't a right to get a discount and there is no law against giving one, your point would be? See sometimes you have to back up a bit in order to have perspective. What about getting a discount for being the tenth caller? Should all the other callers sue?

You were using race as a parallel, that would be more of a rights based argument. Now you choose to say it isn't a rights based argument? Interesting.

No. I never said it had anything to do with "rights". Again, that's trolls trying to pervert the argument because they can't handle it any other way.

The race thing was a completely different tangent, after a poster said that a (hypothetical) restaurant should be allowed to offer discounts to white people. The first thing I pointed out was that that isn't the same case. Not related to this restaurant or what it's doing.

I've had it with these fucking lowlife trolls and their endless dishonest bullshit.

I think the race thing is quite related. In fact, I think it's the most interesting aspect of this issue. Public accommodations laws beg for this kind of debate, and it doesn't happen often enough.

I don't see anything fundamentally different between giving discounts to religious people and giving discounts to a specific race. In either case the business owner is granting preferential treatment to one group and excluding others.

This isn't a public accommodations issue, as no one is being denied access to goods or services as a consequence of race, religion, or gender.

Indeed, everyone is afforded a discount for 'praying,' regardless his race, religion, or gender – even those free from faith are allowed a discount for 'praying.'

It's no difference and no more or less appropriate than any other promotional scheme.