Restaurant rescinds prayer discount

That doesn't work for religion, race, or sex. Never has. Giving that kind of power to the owners of the wealth of a community amplifies their power in arenas that wealth should not be allowed to govern. You end up with capitalism, but oppressive rather than free.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you said that "If I offered a discount for people who ordered Kosher, then we'd have a problem." No, you wouldn't. If you offered a discount to JEWS you would be in trouble. However, there is nothing wrong with charging people more who say "I want that kosher" - because anyone can say that. Jew, Christian, atheist - they can all order Kosher if they want. Claiming "no, only Jews can do that so it's discrimination" is silly.

Likewise, anyone can say a prayer. Claiming that only Catholics, or religious, or non-pagan people can do that is silly.

And that is exactly what they did NOT do. They didn't require a Christian prayer, they required a prayer.

Yes, it is. A Christian scientist or a pagan can get the discount by saying a prayer. A Christian scientist cannot get the free food without violating the precepts of his religion. Thus, one is a ban on a certain religion, one is not. That's pretty simple logic.

Yes, it was, and it was on a website of atheist meal blessings. A good example of how atheists can say prayers without "lying about it."

Then keep your dignity and go to a different restauraunt. You have a lot of rights in this country; legal enforcement of your sense of dignity is not one of those rights.

If you require adherence to a specific religion, then yes, it's a problem, because that's a protected class. "People who don't want to pray" is not a protected class.

How did I duck the question? I don't want to "fuck" anyone, and the fact that you bring up fucking during a discussion that had nothing to do with it is indicative of your anger over this issue. Which is odd - but to each their own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All deny people things based on religion and race - which is illegal. Giving a discount to someone who prays is not.

Now, the first time that a customer comes in and says a humanist blessing and is denied that discount, you'd have a case. Until then - people who say blessings before they eat are not a protected class.

 

It wasn't a good example, admittedly.

It's silly to suggest that prayer is a non-religious function. It's a private communication between the person praying and the deity or deities they worship.

It's analogous to what they did, because prayer is religious in nature by definition..

It's simple alright, it just isn't logic. Think about what you're saying. Working on a Sunday in forbidden by certain Jewish sects. Does that make overtime religious in nature? Does that mean Sears is banning Jews from its workforce? Or is working on Sunday at Sears a secular activity that only has religious connotation when viewed through the lens of a particular religion?

Try to think about it. Seriously, it might help.

I have no idea why an Irish prayer would be on a wesbite of atheist meal blessings, or any idea why such a website would exist, but regardless of what you read on one internet website, prayer is a religious function. Therefore it is a violation of civil rights laws. That is a fact.

Sure it is. That's one of the reasons civil rights laws exist in the first place, genius. Blacks could ride the bus, sure, but they suffered the indignity of riding in the back. Then we, as a nation, realized that putting human beings through that kind of degredation and humiliation wasn't tolerable. So we enacted laws preventing it.

It's odd how you seem to have this notion of prayer as this thing everyone does, and those who don't are just being difficult. Yours is the same mistake the diner owners are making: Namely, assuming that all religious people are essentially Protestant Christian.

Everybody prays over their meal, right? Right?

Oh, this is where you pretend you don't speak English so good. Okay, well, try again, this time omitting the popular slang term "Fuck," which in this case meant "to hell with" or "forget."

 

Case-in-point.

Do I get to take a shot in return, or are you too much of a coward to extend your mod-shield to me for one post?

Also, you're not an authority. You're just a bully. And I know what you're compensating for.

 

Take whatever shot you want - I've long since ceased caring what you think... your fetish with the moderation team is, quite frankly, disgusting. At this point, the only thing I'm "compensating for" is how long I endeavored to show you the courtesy of not simply speaking my mind and calling out what I see... that courtesy is over. If you don't like being called out on your actions, then perhaps its time to start acting the way you are.

We both know, however, that you are completely unwilling to admit wrongdoing, much less change your ways... five pages of infractions shows that quite well.

 

In terms of the restaurant giving discounts for prayer, what about political action committees PACs who do not give discounts to all groups? Do the PAC's have the right to discriminate against other causes, that don't agree with them to the level they require? Isn't it up to the cause to conform to the needs of PAC to get the feeble? If I want to get money from a PAC, that supports gay rights or prayer in schools, but don't jump the hoops, should we call this discrimination if they don't give it to me ?

 

What if they would give discounts to gay people (men kissing each other on the mouth) only?
Would straight men be kissing each other in order to get the discount? Would you do it? I think not..
Would you like that situation? It's about the same thing as giving discounts for people praying.

 

No, they don't. They don't deny anything to anybody - they grant a discount to favored folks, and in the Walmart and airline ticket examples they grant that discount based on what of religious import people say or do - nothing prevents anyone from claiming adherence to a non-Islamic religion, for example. Any Muslim who wants an airline discount can simply claim Presbyterian belief and pocket the money - right? Or maybe that would be necessary to be allowed to fly at all on these private airlines owned by people who have religious agendas - why not? There's no discrimination, after all, in treating everyone who says the right thing in public the same - says the business owner person.

All religious identity is based on what people are willing to say or do - often, at meals. Discrimination based on that is forbidden to US businesses in their public dealings.

That kind of pretend neutrality in religious matters has been a cover for religious oppression so invariably that the burden of proof has shifted and the practice banned. We've seen that song and dance too often, and the consequences of officially pretending to believe it have been too severe, to allow a blind eye toward what is actually going on.

The case has been made by centuries of experience, already. In race, sex, and religion, you let the nose in, you get the camel. If we pretend we don't know this, we will suffer the consequences.

 

Read the law. A PAC doesn't qualify as a business open to the public.

 

Since a business is not a person, they have to abide by special Federal regulations of all sorts.

 

What's the great burden of printing a warning label? In my company we take every step possible to prevent accidents, including large, brightly colored warnings on everything, with detailed instructions on how to use something and how not to use it. And we aren't the general public, everyone is relatively smart and educated. Prevention is far superior to an industrial accident.

 

Oh gimme a break. Liebeck and her attorneys made out like a bandit, being awarded 2 million. Yet she spilled her coffee on herself. If I poke my eye with a straw from a McDonald's drink do I get 2 million too because McDonald's didn't warn me about that? Liebeck obviously had reasonable expectation that the coffee was hot enough to burn her skin.This can't have been the first time she ordered coffee from them. And the coffee was that hot because it had to meet industry standards. Here's the Wiki background your website seems to have missed:

"The case is considered by some to be an example of frivolous litigation.[4] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits".[5] Jonathan Turley called the case "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[6] McDonald's asserts that the outcome of the case was a fluke, and attributed the loss to poor communications and strategy by an unfamiliar insurer representing a franchise. Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defended the result in Liebeck by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of its coffee after the suit.

Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[16][17][18] They also argued that the coffee was not defective because McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards,[2] and coffee continues to be served as hot or hotter today at McDonald's and chains like Starbucks.[19] They further stated that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury.[20] From 2002 to 2007, an offshoot from a weekly news column by writer Randy Cassingham resulted in a website called the "Stella Awards", which purported to give awards to people who filed "outrageous and frivolous lawsuits"....

...McMahon v. Bunn Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic, finding that 179 °F (82 °C) hot coffee was not "unreasonably dangerous".[21]

In Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in England failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.[22]

Since Liebeck, major vendors of coffee, including Chick-Fil-A,[23] Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, Burger King,[24] hospitals,[25] and McDonald's[26] have been defendants in similar lawsuits over coffee-related burns. The courts in these lawsuits did not find hot coffee unreasonably dangerous or defectively manufactured.[citation needed]

Coffee temperature

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[27]

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[28] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[28][29] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[30] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). Retailers today sell coffee as hot or hotter than the coffee that burned Stella Liebeck.
---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

This place deserves better than you. My past ban is evidence of just how fragile your ego is, and of how much of it is tied into your appearance here. Pointing out how crude your comments were, for examle, immediately drew flaming insults and Insinuation. You can't even pretend to be anything but an angry little man whose self-worth is wholly dependent on the size of his e-peen. I mean, did you really call yourself an "authority?" You're a clownish little bully that needs to lord over others to feel good about yourself.

If you don't like what I have to say, maybe it's time you consider changing your behavior. You know, maybe don't call someone a troll just because you can. You know, maybe don't abuse the fact that there's no oversight for moderators. You know, act like a human being instead fo a fake tough guy hiding behind a computer monitor.

 

That's the best you can do? How sad... the only part you got right was that I am behind a computer monitor... and that's a given since this is the Internet. Ah well, I never expected you to be able to put together an actual, reasonable argument. Ah well, the mewling whining of an angry troll doesn't bother me any; unlike you, I am content and secure in who and what I am - the post of moderator is not a popularity contest. If you don't like me, oh well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And just so YOU know, and as I quoted, McDonald's WAS and IS still serving their coffee at 170 degrees in complete agreement with industry standards and many other coffee outlets, including Starbucks. Sleezy lawyers and their opportunistic spillers have since this trial tried to sue these companies for shamefully exorbitant amounts but judges almost consistently thrown their cases out. Everybody knows that coffee is hot, and that to spill in your crotch will result in burns. But there's no logic for holding the food outlet for the accident you had due to your own clumsiness. That's why people laugh at lawsuits like this, and at people who try to defend them in the name of some screwed up sense of payback against evil corporations. It's abuse of the legal system in the name of greed, and the main reason corporations now have to print stupid warnings on their products is because of the stupid careless people who are out trying to milk them of every cent they can get. Now case closed before Kitt closes us down for being off topic.

More frivolous lawsuits:

"In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles.

In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.

In May 2003, Stephen Joseph of San Francisco sued Kraft foods for putting trans-fat in their Oreo cookies. Joseph wanted an injunction to order Kraft to stop selling Oreos to children. Once the media caught wind of Joseph's lawsuit, the media blitz became too much for him to handle. He decided to drop the suit."

 

If it were truly frivolous, it would have been thrown out by the judge.

Anyway:

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature.

Not 170 as you claim.

And this:

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

Not 170 as you claim.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

Rights versus Priviliges

Really? Or, Why Do People Insist on Such Stupidity?

This is the sort of uneducated bullshit we put up with on a daily basis from American charlatans otherwise known as "conservatives".

As for non-Americans? Well, this part isn't really so hard to figure out.

(1) In the public square, such as a licensed business, it is illegal to discriminate against people for their religion.

(2) Therefore, offering a benefit intended to exclude people according to religious criteria is a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free religion;.

(3) The only practical way around this is to adopt the tacit argument of American conservatives: We cannot be equal under the law unless we are superior under the law.​

Like I said, this is not hard to figure out. Generally speaking, when someone introduces such an argument, it is a signal to everyone else that they have nothing useful to say.

Here is the reality: Where you see imbalance in "clamping down", this is what happens whenever one pursues equality. That is to say, for those denigrated by inequality, equality is a step up. For those enjoying the fruits of inequality, equality is a step down. If it appears Chrsitians are getting hit more than other religions, that is because our American search for equality and justice means Christians will lose some unjust privileges.

The phrasing of your inquiry requires the erroneous presupposition that the situation preceding this incident represented some manner of just balance. It does not, and in the United States it never has. There is a reason why our quest for equality has heard whites, males, and Christians complaining incessantly over the last couple decades. These are the groups that are losing privilege in order that others' rights may be fulfilled.